Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-24hb2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T14:14:28.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Patient involvement in relative effectiveness assessments in the European Network for Health Technology Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2021

Ida Kristin Ørjasæter Elvsaas*
Affiliation:
Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PO Box 222 Skøyen, N-0213Oslo, Norway
Sabine Ettinger
Affiliation:
HTA Austria – Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH, Vienna, Austria
Anne Willemsen
Affiliation:
The National Health Care Institute, Diemen, The Netherlands
*
Author for correspondence: Ida Kristin Ørjasæter Elvsaas, E-mail: Idakristinorjasaeter.elvsaas@fhi.no

Abstract

Patient involvement in the process of producing health technology assessments has become increasingly important. In the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), several approaches to patient involvement were explored. The outcome was a document on “Patient Input in Relative Effectiveness Assessments” that is available for access and was published in 2019.

The aim of this article is to analyze the experience gained by EUnetHTA in patient involvement for EUnetHTA assessment production, describe and quantify the approaches used, and outline the challenges and avenues for the improvement of current processes.

Patients were involved in twenty-three of thirty-six pharmaceutical and other technology EUnetHTA assessments from June 2016 until the end of November 2019. Approaches to patient involvement included using a patient input template, one-on-one conversations, group conversations, scoping meeting with patients, and other approaches.

Although it is recognized that patient involvement is important to understand the needs of the target patient population, challenges remain with timely patient involvement. Additionally, further efforts are needed to guide assessment teams on how to implement and enhance the visibility of patient input in assessments.

Type
Article Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Erdös, J, Ettinger, S, Mayer-Ferbas, J, de Villiers, C, Wild, C. European Collaboration in Health Technology Assessment (HTA): goals, methods and outcomes with specific focus on medical devices. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2019;169:284–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Union. Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parlament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. OJL. 2011;88:4565.Google Scholar
EUnetHTA. EUnetHTA Joint Action 1 (2010–2012) [cited 2020 Sep 08]. Available from: https://eunethta.eu/ja1-archive/Google Scholar
EUnetHTA. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2 (2012–2015) [cited 2020 Sep 08]. Available from: https://eunethta.eu/ja2-archive/Google Scholar
EUnetHTA. EUnetHTA Joint Action 3 (2016–2021) [cited 2020 Sep 08]. Available from: https://eunethta.eu/ja3-archive/Google Scholar
European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). What is health technology assessment (HTA)? [cited 2020 May 26]. Available from: https://www.eunethta.eu/services/submission-guidelines/submissions-faq/Google Scholar
EUnetHTA. Stakeholder Involvement Policy: EUnetHTA Joint Action 2010–2012. 2010. Available from: https://www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/EUnetHTA-JA-Stakeholder-Involvement-Policy.pdfGoogle Scholar
EUnetHTA. Patients [cited 2020 May 26]. Available from: https://www.eunethta.eu/stakeholders/patients/Google Scholar
Hailey, D, Werkö, S, Bakri, R, Cameron, A, Göhlen, B, Myles, S, et al. Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by Inahta agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:7983.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Patient Preferences in Benefit-Risk Assessments during the Drug Life Cycle (PREFER). PREFER. Patient preferences [cited 2020 May 26]. Available from: https://www.imi-prefer.eu/Google Scholar
PARADIGM. PARADIGM [cited 2020 May 26]. Available from: https://imi-paradigm.eu/Google Scholar
EUnetHTA. Assessments REA (2016–2021): EUnetHTA [cited 2020 Sep 25]. Available from: https://eunethta.eu/rapid-reas/Google Scholar
Carman, KL, Dardess, P, Maurer, M, Sofaer, S, Adams, K, Bechtel, C, et al. Patient and family engagement: A framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Affairs (Project Hope). 2013;32:223–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gagnon, MP, Desmartis, M, Lepage-Savary, D, Gagnon, J, St-Pierre, M, Rhainds, M, et al. Introducing patients’ and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:3142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Medicines Agency. Outcome Report on Pilot to involve patients in benefit/risk discussions at CHMP meetings ema.europa.eu 2017. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/report/outcome-report-pilot-involve-patients-benefit/risk-discussions-chmp-meetings_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Tafuri, G, Bélorgey, C, Favaretti, C, Frénoy, E, Giorgio, F, Guardian, M, et al. The fourth edition of the European Network for Health Technology Assessment Forum: Highlights and outcomes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020: 16.Google ScholarPubMed
Plain Language Association International (PLAIN). What is plain language? [cited 2020 May 26]. Available from: https://plainlanguagenetwork.org/plain-language/what-is-plain-language/Google Scholar
Eccles, MP, Grimshaw, JM, Shekelle, P, Schünemann, HJ, Woolf, S. Developing clinical practice guidelines: Target audiences, identifying topics for guidelines, guideline group composition and functioning and conflicts of interest. Implement Sci. 2012;7:60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar