Discussion: Making Sense of Patients’ Perspectives, Experiences, and Preferences in HTA
- 906 Downloads
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).
KeywordsSocial Medium Deliberative Democracy Qualitative Evidence Synthesis Deliberative Intervention Deliberative Method
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- Marques ACS. La conversation civique Sur internet: contributions au processus délibératif. Estudos em Comunicação/Commun Stud. 2009;5:21–52.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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