Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T20:36:18.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond clinical and cost-effectiveness: The contribution of qualitative research to health technology assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2023

Evi Germeni Open the ORCID record for Evi Germeni [Opens in a new window]  and
Shelagh Szabo
Evi Germeni*
Affiliation:
Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Shelagh Szabo
Affiliation:
Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
*
Corresponding author: Evi Germeni; Email: evi.germeni@glasgow.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent developments in health technology assessment (HTA), including the promotion of a new and internationally accepted definition of HTA, have highlighted the need to go beyond clinical and cost-effectiveness to fully understand the potential value of health technologies. Multidisciplinary efforts to generate patient-focused evidence relevant to HTA, using both quantitative and qualitative approaches, are needed. Although it has been more than 20 years since opportunities for qualitative methods to inform HTA were first discussed, their use remains infrequent. The goal of this article is to resurrect the debate about the value of qualitative research in HTA. Drawing on examples from published literature, we propose five key areas where qualitative methods can contribute to HTA, complementary to studies of clinical and cost-effectiveness: (i) assessing acceptability and subjective value; (ii) understanding perspectives and providing context; (iii) reaching the groups other methods cannot reach; (iv) laying the groundwork for subsequent quantitative exercises; and (v) contributing to economic model development.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentqualitative researchinterviewsfocus groupspatient involvement
Type
Perspective
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , 2023 , e23
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. 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

Kristensen, FB, Husereau, D, Huic, M, et al. Identifying the need for good practices in health technology assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA. Value Health. 2019;22:13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Rourke, B, Oortwijn, W, Schuller, T, International Joint Task, Group. The new definition of health technology assessment: A milestone in international collaboration. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:187–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leys, M. Health technology assessment: The contribution of qualitative research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:317–329.Google ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization. 2015 Gloval survey on health technology assessment by national authorities: Main findings. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.Google Scholar
Plsek, PE, Greenhalgh, T. Complexity science: The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ. 2001;323:625-628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popay, J, Williams, G. Qualitative research and evidence-based healthcare. J R Soc Med. 1998;91(Suppl 35):32-37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, E, Dingwall, R, Greatbatch, D, Parker, S, Watson, P. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: A review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1999;2:16–275.Google Scholar
Booth, A, Noyes, J, Flemming, K, et al. Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. INTEGRATE-HTA 2016. 2016. http://esquiresheffield.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/111070576/Guidance-on-choosing-qualitative-evidence-synthesis-methods-for-use-in-HTA-of-complex-interventi.pdf (accessed 27 October 2022).Google Scholar
O’Cathain, A, Thomas, KJ, Drabble, SJ, Rudolph, A, Hewison, J. What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? A systematic mapping review. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002889.Google ScholarPubMed
Ryan, C, Hesselgreaves, H, Wu, O, et al. Patient acceptability of three different central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: A qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026077.Google ScholarPubMed
Wu, O, McCartney, E, Heggie, R, et al. Venous access devices for the delivery of long-term chemotherapy: The CAVA three-arm RCT. Health Technol Assess. 2021;25:1–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geneau, R, Massae, P, Courtright, P, Lewallen, S. Using qualitative methods to understand the determinants of patients’ willingness to pay for cataract surgery: A study in Tanzania. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66:558–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pope, C, Mays, N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: An introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311:42–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caiata-Zufferey, M, Zanini, CA, Schulz, PJ, et al. Living with Gitelman disease: An insight into patients’ daily experiences. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012;27:3196–3201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, KJ. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference-based, generic, pediatric, health-related quality-of-life measure. Qual Health Res. 2010;20:340–351.Google ScholarPubMed
Matza, LS, Stewart, KD, Lloyd, AJ, Rowen, D, Brazier, JE. Vignette-based utilities: Usefulness, limitations, and methodological recommendations. Value Health. 2021;24:812–821.Google ScholarPubMed
Coast, J, Horrocks, S. Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12:25–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Husbands, S, Jowett, S, Barton, P, Coast, J. How qualitative methods can be used to inform model development. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35:607–612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwon, J, Lee, Y, Young, T, Squires, H, Harris, J. Qualitative research to inform economic modelling: A case study in older people’s views on implementing the NICE falls prevention guideline. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1020.Google ScholarPubMed
Chilcott, J, Tappenden, P, Rawdin, A, et al. Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: Qualitative study and methodological review. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14:iii-iv, ix-xii, 1–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Facey, KM. As health technology assessment evolves so must its approach to patient involvement. J Comp Eff Res. 2019;8:549–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewin, S, Glenton, C, Munthe-Kaas, H, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: An approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med. 2015;12:e1001895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tong, A, Flemming, K, McInnes, E, Oliver, S, Craig, J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.Google ScholarPubMed
Tong, A, Sainsbury, P, Craig, J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szabo, SM, Hawkins, N, Germeni, E. Using qualitative methods to inform health technology assessment: A review of submissions to NICE and CADTH. Seattle (WA): SMDM; 2022.Google Scholar