Putting Patients at the Centre of Healthcare: Progress and Challenges for Health Technology Assessments

Abstract

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are meant to inform health policy by taking account of all the potential impacts of using a health technology. In the 1990s, HTAs included rigorous research to produce patient-based evidence, and some supported participation of patient representatives to help focus HTA research and determine value. In the 2000s, HTAs became more closely linked to reimbursement decisions, focusing on clinical and cost effectiveness. Patient involvement should be tailored to the specific needs of each HTA. As the timeframe for HTAs has reduced, research to produce patient-based evidence has been replaced by input from patient groups. This places a burden on individuals and organizations that needs to be critically reviewed. Therefore, it is imperative that we clarify when patient involvement is likely to add value and support patients to provide their unique knowledge in the most optimal way to influence HTA decision making. To reduce the burden on patient groups, more must be done to encourage research to produce patient-based evidence early in technology development. Like clinical research, a programme of research should be carefully planned, with appropriate methodological rigor for each study, and all research should be published. For this, the development of quality standards for research to produce patient-based evidence may be needed. Patient involvement has inherent value. It should be focused, systematic and transparent, and evolve according to the experiences of all stakeholders. All countries or collaboratives that undertake HTA should consider how they can elicit the needs, preferences and experiences of patients to support creation of patient-centered healthcare policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Committee on Quality Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington DC: Institute of Medicine; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    PWC. Changing demographics demand healthcare reforms. 2018. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/healthcare/emerging-trends-pwc-healthcare/changing-demographics-healthcare-reform.html . Accessed 22 Jan 2018.

  3. 3.

    Newdick C. Who should we treat? Rights, rationing and resources in the NHS. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    HTAi. What is HTA? 2018. https://www.htai.org/htai/what-is-hta/ Accessed 22 Jan 2018.

  5. 5.

    Coulter A. Beyond Bristol: putting patients at the center. BMJ. 2002;324(7338):648–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kristensen FB, Sigmund HP. Health technology assessment handbook 2007. (2nd edition, in English). Copenhagen: National Board of Health; 2008. http://sundhedsstyrelsen.dk/~/media/ECAAC5AA1D6943BEAC96907E03023E22.ashx Accessed 5 Apr 2016.

  7. 7.

    Slattery J, Chick J, Cochrane M, Craig J, Godfrey C, Kohli H, et al. Prevention of relapse in alcohol dependence. Health technology assessment report 3. Health Technology Board for Scotland. 2003. http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/previous_resources/hta_report/hta_3.aspx. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.

  8. 8.

    Ritchie K, Boynton J, Bradbury I, Foster L, Iqbal K, Kohli H, et al. Routine ultrasound scanning before 24 weeks of pregnancy. Health technology assessment report 5. 2004. http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/previous_resources/hta_report/hta_5.aspx. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.

  9. 9.

    Milbank Memorial Fund. Better information, better outcomes: the use of health technology assessment and clinical effectiveness data in health care purchasing decisions in the United Kingdom and the United States. Milbank memorial fund report; 2000. https://www.milbank.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Better-Information-Better-Outcomes.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.

  10. 10.

    Facey KM, Single ANV. Patient input to HTA. In: Facey KM, Hansen HP, Single ANV, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2017. p. 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Staniszewska S, Werkö S. Patient-based evidence. In: Facey KM, Hansen HP, Single ANV, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2017. p. 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Cox DR, Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher AE, et al. Qual-ity of life assessment: can we keep it simple? J Royal Stat Soc Ser A. 1992;155:353–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Improving cross-sector comparisons: going beyond the health-related QALY. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13:557–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    NICE. News—NICE to work with partners on developing new ways to measure quality of life across health and social care. 13 June 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/nice-to-work-with-partners-on-developing-new-ways-to-measure-quality-of-life-across-health-and-social-care. Accessed 22 Jan 2018.

  15. 15.

    Scottish Medicines Consortium. SMC modifiers used in appraising new medicines. June 2012. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/About_SMC/Policy_statements/SMC_Modifiers_used_in_Appraising_New_Medicines. Accessed 22 Jan 2018.

  16. 16.

    Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in HTA: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Facey KM, Hansen HP, Single ANV, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Springer Nature: Singapore; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Facey K, Hansen HP. Patient-focused HTAs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:273–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    OHTAC Public Engagement Subcommittee. Public engagement for health technology assessment at Health Quality Ontario—final report from the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee Public Engagement Subcommittee. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario; 2015. http://www.hqontario.ca/Portals/0/documents/evidence/special-reports/report-subcommittee-20150407-en.pdf. Accessed 21 Mar 2018.

  20. 20.

    Facey KM. Developing the mosaic of patient participation in HTA. In: Facey KM, Hansen HP, Single ANV, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2017. p. 51–66.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Addario BJ, Fadich A, Fox J, et al. Patient value: perspectives from the advocacy community. Health Expect. 2018;21:57–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    CADTH Patient Community Liaison Forum. Patient involvement in health technology management, October 2017. https://www.cadth.ca/cadth-patient-community-liaison-forum. Accessed 24 Mar 2018.

  23. 23.

    Berglas S, Jutai L, MacKean G, Weeks L. Patients’ perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: an exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    CADTH Common Drug Review. CADTH Canadian drug expert review committee: final recommendation. Budesonide MMX (Cortiment—Ferring Inc.) Indication: Ulcerative Colitis. Ottawa, ON: CADTH; 2017. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/complete/SR0491_complete_Cortiment-Mar-24-17.pdf Accessed 5 Jun 2018.

  25. 25.

    NICE. Vedolizumab for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. TA342. London: NICE; 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta342. Accessed 2 Jul 2018.

  26. 26.

    CADTH Common Drug Review. CADTH Canadian drug expert review committee: final recommendation. Sapropterin (Kuvan—BioMarin Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc.). Indication: to reduce blood phenylalanine levels in patients with hyperphenylalaninemia due to BH4-responsive phenylketonuria. Ottawa: CADTH; 2016. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/complete/SR0472_complete_Kuvan-Oct-28-16.pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2018.

  27. 27.

    NICE. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. TA 151. London: NICE; 2008. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta151. Accessed 2 Jul 2018.

  28. 28.

    CADTH Common Drug Review Pharmacoeconomic Review Report. Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus—Hoffmann-La Roche Limited). Indication: management of adult patients with early primary progressive multiple sclerosis as defined by disease duration and level of disability, in conjunction with imaging features characteristic of inflammatory activity. Ottawa: CADTH; 2018. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/pharmacoeconomic/SR0542_Ocrevus_PPMS_PE_Report.pdf. Accessed 5 Jun. 2018.

  29. 29.

    NICE. Ranibizumab and pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration. TA 155. London: NICE; 2008. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta155. Accessed 2 Jul 2018.

  30. 30.

    CADTH Common Drug Review. CADTH Canadian drug expert review committee: final recommendation. Emtricitabine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (Truvada—Gilead Sciences Canada, Inc.). Indication: pre-exposure prophylaxis of HIV-1 infection. Ottawa: CADTH; 2016. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/cdr/complete/SR0479_complete_Truvada_Aug-26-16.pdf. Accessed 5 Jun 2018.

  31. 31.

    NICE. Total prosthetic replacement of the temporomandibular joint. IPG 500. London: NICE; 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg500. Accessed 2 Jul 2018.

  32. 32.

    Bedlington N, Geissler J, Houyez F, et al. Role of patient organisations. In: Facey KM, Hansen HP, Single ANV, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2017. p. 401–10.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Epstein R, Street R Jr. The values and value of patient-centered care. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9:100–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Silva AS, Petramale CA, Rabelo RB, Santos VCC. Brazil. In: Facey KM, Hansen HP, Single ANV, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2017. p. 243–6.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    CADTH. Drug portfolio information sessions, October 26, 2016. https://www.cadth.ca/events/cadth-drug-portfolio-information-sessions-2016. Accessed 24 July 2018

  36. 36.

    Berglas S, Rader T, Mai H. Data collection by patient groups to provide patient input [abstract for HTAi poster]. HTAi 2018 annual meeting; 1–5 June 2018: Vancouver, BC.

  37. 37.

    Scottish Medicines Consortium. Evaluation of the SMC’s impact on and engagement with stakeholders—executive summary and full report. 2008. http://scottishmedicines.org.uk/files/SMC_engagement_with_stakeholders.pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2018.

  38. 38.

    SECOR. CADTH patient input process review: findings and recommendations. September 2012. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/2012_SECOR_Patient-Input-Review_e.pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2018.

  39. 39.

    Rashid A, Thomas V, Shaw T, Leng G. Patient and public involvement in the development of healthcare guidance: an overview of current methods and future challenges. Patient. 2017;10(3):277–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    HTAi. Values and standards for patient involvement in HTA. 2014. https://www.htai.org/interest-groups/patient-and-citizen-involvement/pcig-home/values-and-standards/ Accessed 31 Mar 2018.

  41. 41.

    Rader T, Bond K. The CADTH common drug review: is specific feedback useful to patient groups in preparing patient input submissions? [abstract for HTAi poster]. HTAi 2016 Annual meeting; 10–14 May 2016: Tokyo.

  42. 42.

    Upadhyaya S, Thomas L, Leng G, Livingstone H. OP37 can local ultra-orphan patient evidence shape global understanding? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(Suppl 1):16–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    HTAi. Building a shared resource of patient experience and preferences to improve HTA [abstract for workshop]. HTAi 2018 Annual meeting: full programme 2018. https://www.xcdsystem.com/htai/program/TSmTaZQ/ Accessed 5 Jul 2018.

  44. 44.

    US FDA. The voice of the patient: a series of reports from the FDA’s patient-focused drug development initiative. 2016. http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm368342.htm Accessed 31 Mar 2018.

  45. 45.

    European Commission. Clinical trials—regulation EU No 536/2014. 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/clinical-trials/regulation_en. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.

  46. 46.

    US FDA. Patient-focused drug development public workshop on guidance 1. Collecting comprehensive and representative input—discussion document. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM586195.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.

  47. 47.

    de Bekker-Grob EW, Berlin C, Levitan B, Raza K, Christoforidi K, Cleemput I, Pelouchova J, Enzmann H, Cook N, Hansson MG, et al. Giving patients’ preferences a voice in medical treatment life cycle: the PREFER public–private project. Patient. 2017;10:263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    US FDA. Roadmap to patient focused outcome measurement in clinical trials. 2015. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DrugDevelopmentToolsQualificationProgram/UCM370174.pdf Accessed 31 Mar 2018.

  49. 49.

    US FDA. Patient preference initiative. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/centersoffices/officeofmedicalproductsandtobacco/cdrh/cdrhpatientengagement/ucm462830.htm. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.

  50. 50.

    Mühlbacher AC, Johnson FR. Giving patients a meaningful voice in european health technology assessments: the role of health preference research. Patient. 2017;10:527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Weeks L, Booth A, Campbell F, Facey K. Rapid qualitative evidence synthesis to develop patient-centered action [abstract for HTAi panel]. HTAi 2018 Annual meeting; 1–5 June 2018: Vancouver, BC.

  52. 52.

    Booth A, Weeks L, Campbell F, Smith A, Kaunelis D. Rapid review and synthesis of qualitative evidence [abstract]. Qualitative health research conference; 17–19 October 2017: Quebec City, QC.

  53. 53.

    Myeloma UK. Myeloma UK establishes patient preference research partnership with NICE. 2016. https://www.myeloma.org.uk/news/myeloma-uk-establishes-patient-preference-research-partnership-with-nice/. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.

  54. 54.

    Danner M, Gerber-Grote A. Analytic hierarchy process. In: Facey KM, Hansen HP, Single ANV, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2017. p. 135–48.

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. A guide to patient and public involvement in quality improvement. April 2016. https://www.hqip.org.uk/involving-patients/. Accessed 29 Mar 2018.

  56. 56.

    Weeks L, Polisena J, Scott AM, et al. Evaluation of patient and public involvement initiatives in health technology assessment: a survey of international agencies. Int J Tech Ass in Health Care. 2017;33(6):715–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    European Commission. Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council on health technology assessment and amending Directive 2011/24/EU. 31 January 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/technology_assessment/docs/com2018_51final_en.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2018.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the patients and patient representatives who have given their precious time and valuable insights to the field of HTA over the past two decades. Their candid insights have changed the way we think and motivated us to continue to strive to improve patient involvement in HTA.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen M. Facey.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for the preparation of this paper.

Conflict of interest

Karen Facey was paid an honorarium by Springer to be lead editor of the book on Patient Involvement in HTA. She has received fees from Novartis, UCB, Takeda, the International Plasma Protein Congress, Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the Active Citizens Network since January 2017 for work related to patient involvement in HTA. She has also received expenses from Eurordis and the International Society for Health Economics and Research (ISPOR) to attend meetings related to patient involvement in HTA. Nicola Bedlington’s organization, the European Patients Forum, receives grants from different corporate entities, as listed in annual reports (www.eu-patient.eu/library/Annual-Reports111/), in accordance with the European Patients’ Forum Framework for Cooperation (http://www.eu-patient.eu/globalassets/who-we-are/transparency/framework-for-cooperation-2014.pdf). Sarah Berglas is employed as a patient engagement officer at CADTH, a Canadian health technology assessment agency. Neil Bertelsen has been paid honoraria and consulting fees as part of his work as a consultant specializing in market access advice and patient involvement in healthcare decision making. These honoraria come from a mix of pharmaceutical industry and patient group sources. Ann Single was paid an honorarium by Springer to be co-editor of the book on Patient Involvement in HTA. She has a voluntary position with the Patient Voice Initiative in Australia. Victoria Thomas is a full-time employee of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), an HTA body.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Facey, K.M., Bedlington, N., Berglas, S. et al. Putting Patients at the Centre of Healthcare: Progress and Challenges for Health Technology Assessments. Patient 11, 581–589 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0325-5

Download citation