Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient and Public Involvement in Health Economics Modelling Raises the Need for Normative Guidance

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Patient and public involvement in health economics research and health technology assessment has been increasing for some time; however, patient and public involvement in health economics modelling is a more recent development. One reason to advance this type of involvement is to help appropriately manage the social and ethical value judgements that are required throughout model development and interpretation. At the same time, patient and public involvement in health economics modelling raises numerous practical and philosophical issues that invite discussion and debate. Recently, we attended an engagement event which invited patients, members of the public, researchers and decision-makers to discuss some of these issues. One priority that emerged in the discussion was to develop normative guidance for patient and public involvement in health economics modelling. In this article, we reflect on this goal from our own perspective, focusing on why normative guidance is needed and what questions that guidance should answer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022;40(6):601–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kandiyali R, Hawton A, Cabral C, Mytton J, Shilling V, Morris C, et al. Working with patients and members of the public: informing health economics in child health research. PharmacoEconomics Open. 2019;3:133–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Goodwin E, Boddy K, Tatnell L, Hawton A. Involving members of the public in health economics research: insights from selecting health states for valuation to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) weights. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2018;16:187–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Al-Janabi H, Coles J, Copping J, Dhanji N, McLoughlin C, Murphy J, et al. Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health economics methodology research: reflections and recommendations. Patient. 2021;14:421–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Aguiar M, Harrison M, Munro S, Burch T, Kaal KJ, Hudson M, et al. Designing discrete choice experiments using a patient-oriented approach. Patient. 2021;14:389–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wale JL, Thomas S, Hamerlijnck D, Hollander R. Patients and public are important stakeholders in health technology assessment but the level of involvement is low—a call to action. Research involvement and engagement. BioMed Central. 2021;7:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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 Engage. 2016;2:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Single AN, Facey KM, Livingstone H, Silva AS. Stories of patient involvement impact in health technology assessments: a discussion paper. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35:266–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Staniszewska S, Hill EM, Grant R, Grove P, Porter J, Shiri T, et al. Developing a framework for public involvement in mathematical and economic modelling: bringing new dynamism to vaccination policy recommendations. Patient. 2021;14:435–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Xie RZ, de Malik Fur E, Linthicum MT, Bright JL. Putting stakeholder engagement at the center of health economic modeling for health technology assessment in the United States. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39:631–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bunka M, Ghanbarian S, Riches L, Landry G, Edwards L, Hoens AM, et al. Collaborating with patient partners to model clinical care pathways in major depressive disorder: the benefits of mixing evidence and lived experience. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022;40:971–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Tappenden P. Conceptual modelling for health economic model development. HEDS Discussion Paper 12/05. Sheffield; 2012.

  13. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB. ISPOR−SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Value Health. 2012;15(6):843–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD. Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-2. Value Health. 2012;15:804–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Harvard S, Werker GR, Silva DS. Social, ethical, and other value judgments in health economics modelling. Soc Sci Med. 2020;253:112975.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Harvard S, Winsberg E, Symons J, Adibi A. Value judgments in a COVID-19 vaccination model: a case study in the need for public involvement in health-oriented modelling. Soc Sci Med. 2021;286:114323.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Winsberg E, Harvard S. Purposes and duties in scientific modelling. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2022;76:512–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Winsberg E. Values and uncertainties in the predictions of global climate models. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2012;22:111–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Winsberg E. Philosophy and climate science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2018.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Harvard S, Winsberg E. Causal inference, moral intuition, and modeling in a pandemic. Philos Med. 2021;2:25.

    Google Scholar 

  21. How Can Health Economic Models Best Reflect Patient and Public Values? Speaker Session June 14, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI_T4hHe4d4. Accessed Mar 11 2023.

  22. Elliott KC. A taxonomy of transparency in science. Can J Philos. 2022;52:342–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Elliott KC. The value-ladenness of transparency in science: lessons from Lyme disease. Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2021;88:1–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 2019;22:785–801.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Hawton A, Boddy K, Kandiyali R, Tatnell L, Gibson A, Goodwin E. Involving patients in health economics research: “The PACTS Principles.” Patient. 2021;14:429–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Voinov A, Bousquet F. Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Softw. 2010;25:1268–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Voinov A, Kolagani N, McCall MK, Glynn PD, Kragt ME, Ostermann FO, et al. Modelling with stakeholders—next generation. Environ Model Softw. 2016;77:196–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Voinov A, Jenni K, Gray S, Kolagani N, Glynn PD, Bommel P, et al. Tools and methods in participatory modeling: selecting the right tool for the job. Environ Model Softw. 2018;109:232–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Voinov A, Gaddis EB. Values in participatory modeling: theory and practice. Environ Model Stakeholders Theory Methods Appl. 2017;20:47–63.

    Google Scholar 

  30. van Voorn GA, Vemer P, Hamerlijnck D, Ramos IC, Teunissen GJ, Al M, et al. The Missing Stakeholder Group: why patients should be involved in health economic modelling. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14:129–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gray S, Paolisso M, Jordan R, Gray S. Environmental modeling with stakeholders: theory, methods, and applications. Switzerland: Springer; 2017.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Wilson M, Thavorn K, Hawrysh T, Graham ID, Atkins H, Kekre N, et al. Stakeholder engagement in economic evaluation: protocol for using the nominal group technique to elicit patient, healthcare provider, and health system stakeholder input in the development of an early economic evaluation model of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e046707.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Gibbs NK, Angus C, Dixon S, Parry C, Meier P. Stakeholder engagement in the development of public health economic models: an application to modelling of minimum unit pricing of alcohol in South Africa. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2023;20:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Harvard S, Werker GR. Health economists on involving patients in modeling: potential benefits, harms, and variables of interest. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39:823–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. The NIHR Imperial BRC Patient Experience Research Centre (PERC). A Rough Guide to Public Involvement. National Institute for Health Research; 2021. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/perc/PERCs-Rough-Guide-to-Public-Involvement---Dec-2021.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2023.

  36. Stafinski T, Street J, Menon D. OP114 the public’s role in understanding the value of health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34:43–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bidonde J, Vanstone M, Schwartz L, Abelson J. An institutional ethnographic analysis of public and patient engagement activities at a national health technology assessment agency. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2021;20:37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Harvard S, Winsberg E. The epistemic risk in representation. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2022;32:1–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Parker WS. Model evaluation: an adequacy-for-purpose view. Philos Sci. 2020;87:457–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gagnon M-P, Dipankui MT, Poder TG, Payne-Gagnon J, Mbemba G, Beretta V. Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment: update of a systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2021;20:37.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Boothe K. “Getting to the table”: changing ideas about public and patient involvement in Canadian drug assessment. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2019;44:631–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Steffensen MB, Matzen CL, Wadmann S. Patient participation in priority setting: co-existing participant roles. Soc Sci Med. 2022;294:114713.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health. Guidance for Providing Patient Input. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/Drug_Review_Process/patient_input_guidance.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2023.

  44. Goetghebeur M, Cellier M. Deliberative processes by health technology assessment agencies: a reflection on legitimacy, values and patient and public involvement comment on" Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe". Int J Health Policy Manage. 2021;10:228.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Vanstone M, Abelson J, Bidonde J, Bond K, Burgess R, Canfield C, et al. Ethical challenges related to patient involvement in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35:253–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32:733–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. 4th Edition. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health. 2017. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines_for_the_economic_evaluation_of_health_technologies_canada_4th_ed.pdf Accessed 11 Mar 2023.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge all collaborators and participants in the event “How can health economic models better reflect patient and public values? Understanding stakeholder perspectives and research priorities through the Peer Models Network” funded by a Michael Smith Health Research BC Convening and Collaborating Award (C2-2021-2433). Special thanks to grant co-leads Mohsen Sadatsafavi (UBC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences) and Ian Cromwell (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health), and to Kevin Elliott (Michigan State University) who presented his work on values and transparency in science at this event and whose scholarship has influenced and is cited in the current manuscript. Stephanie Harvard gratefully acknowledges post-doctoral funding from Michael Smith Health Research BC. Eric Winsberg gratefully acknowledges funding from the British Academy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, 2405 Wesbrook Mall, Canada

    Stephanie Harvard

  2. Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge, CB2 3RH, UK

    Eric Winsberg

  3. Department of Philosophy, University of South Florida, 4202 E Fowler Ave, Tampa, FL, 33620, USA

    Eric Winsberg

Authors
  1. Stephanie Harvard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric Winsberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie Harvard.

Ethics declarations

Author contributions

SH conceived the idea for and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. EW contributed substantially to the content and subsequent drafts of the manuscript.

Funding

The public engagement event described herein was funded by a Michael Smith Health Research BC Convening and Collaborating Award (C2-2021-2433). Stephanie Harvard receives post-doctoral funding from Michael Smith Health Research BC. Eric Winsberg holds a British Academy Global Professorship. The funders had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Ethics approval/informed consent

Not applicable.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harvard, S., Winsberg, E. Patient and Public Involvement in Health Economics Modelling Raises the Need for Normative Guidance. PharmacoEconomics 41, 733–740 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-023-01274-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-023-01274-7

Search

Navigation