Advertisement

Discussion: Making Sense of Patients’ Perspectives, Experiences, and Preferences in HTA

  • Pascale LehouxEmail author
  • Jaime Jimenez-Pernett
Chapter
  • 746 Downloads

Abstract

Qualitative research methods have been developed several decades ago and have been applied since then to further knowledge in many social scientific disciplines. Numerous qualitative research communities have been actively sharing their expertise and insights in fields that are closely related to HTA such as sociology of health and illness, healthcare management, health policy, and knowledge synthesis. As a result, there exists today a rich body of scholarship that deepens our understanding of the strengths, limitations, and comparative relevance of specific established qualitative data collection techniques (interviews, focus groups, observation) and explores how innovative qualitative approaches could tap on online environments and tools, including social media (Khodyakov et al. 2016; Marques 2009). Building on this diversified and mature scholarship, four chapters in Part II of this book provide readers with clear guidance on the ways in which particular qualitative methods can help HTA practitioners to elicit patients’ perspectives, experiences, and preferences. These chapters also contribute to the science of HTA by making more explicit the epistemological underpinnings of the “patient’s view.” Along these lines, the current chapter critically discusses the kinds of patient-based evidence one may generate through qualitative methods (1), summarizes key lessons from the four chapters (2), identifies methodological challenges that lie ahead (3), and formulates take-home epistemological messages for the consolidation of patient-based HTA (4).

Keywords

Social Medium Deliberative Democracy Qualitative Evidence Synthesis Deliberative Intervention Deliberative Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abelson J, Montesanti S, Li K, Gauvin F-P, Martin E. Effective strategies for interactive public engagement in the development of healthcare policies and programs. Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2010. 49 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Alderson P. The importance of theories in health care. BMJ. 1998;317:1007–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Black LW, Burkhalter S, Gastil J, Stromer-Galley J. Methods for analyzing and measuring group deliberation. In: Bucy EP, Holbert RL, editors. Sourcebook of political communication research: methods, measures, and analytical techniques. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2011. p. 323–45.Google Scholar
  4. Bombard Y, Abelson J, Simeonov D, Gauvin FP. Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: a participatory approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:135–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Carman KL, Maurer M, Mallery C, Wang G, Garfinkel S, Richmond J et al. Community forum deliberative methods demonstration: evaluating effectiveness and eliciting public views on use of evidence. Final report Nov 2014. Washington: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 167 pp. AHRQ Publication No. 14(15)-EHC007-EF. American Institutes for Research under Contract No. 290-2010-00005.Google Scholar
  6. CHSRF, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Weighing up the evidence. Making evidence-informed guidance accurate, achievable, and acceptable. A summary of the workshop held on September 29, 2005. 2006. http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/migrated/pdf/weighing_up_the_evidence_e.pdf Accessed 15 Oct 2016.
  7. De Vries R, Stanczyk AE, Ryan KA, Kim SY. A framework for assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: enhancing deliberation as a tool for bioethics. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6:3–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Degeling C, Carter SM, Rychetnik L. Which public and why deliberate? A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research. Soc Sci Med. 2015;131:114–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXIII. Qualitative research in health care B. What are the results and how do they help me care for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 2000;284:478–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Khodyakov D, Savitsky TD, Dalal S. Collaborative learning framework for online stakeholder engagement. Health Expect. 2016;19:868–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Lehoux P, Poland B, Daudelin G. Focus group research and "the patient's view". Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:2091–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lehoux P, Daudelin G, Demers-Payette O, Boivin A. Fostering deliberations about health innovations : what do we want to know from the publics? Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:2002–9.Google Scholar
  13. Lehoux P, Gauthier P, Williams-Jones B, Miller FA, Fishman JR, Hivon M, et al. Examining the ethical and social issues of health technology design through the public appraisal of prospective scenarios: a study protocol describing a multimedia-based deliberative method. Implement Sci. 2014;9:81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Lehoux P, Jimenez-Pernett J, Miller FA, Williams-Jones B. Assessment of a multimedia-based prospective method to support public deliberations on health technology design: participant survey findings and qualitative insights. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:616.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Marques ACS. La conversation civique Sur internet: contributions au processus délibératif. Estudos em Comunicação/Commun Stud. 2009;5:21–52.Google Scholar
  16. 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. 1998;2:3–9. 1-274.Google Scholar
  17. Popay J, Collins M, (editors) with the PiiAF Study Group. The public involvement impact assessment framework guidance. Universities of Lancaster, Liverpool and Exeter; 2014. 69 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health Management, Evaluation and PolicyInstitute of Public Health Research of University of Montreal, University of MontrealQuebecCanada
  2. 2.International Health Area, Andalusian School of Public HealthUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations