Use of Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: Perspectives of Canadian, Belgian and German HTA Representatives.
Journal
The patient
ISSN: 1178-1661
Titre abrégé: Patient
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101309314
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
29
8
2020
medline:
11
11
2021
entrez:
29
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patient preferences can be informative for health technology assessment (HTA) and payer decision making. However, applications may be different per country. The aim of this study therefore was to investigate HTA representatives' opinions on whether and how to incorporate patient preferences in HTA in their respective countries. Three country-specific focus groups were conducted with three to seven HTA representatives from Germany, Belgium, and Canada. A predefined focus group guide was used that covered topics relating to how patient preferences can be used in HTA, namely HTA stage, weight, impact, and quality, as well as a case example of gene therapy. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 12 following thematic analysis. Across all HTA bodies, an interest in the use of patient preferences was observed for scientific advice and value assessments, but not through incorporation in quality-adjusted life-years and multi-criteria decision analysis. HTA representatives found it difficult to determine the weight patient preferences may receive in decision making, but thought it could have an impact on payer decision making if the study is of acceptable quality. In the near future it may be impossible to achieve structural integration of patient preferences with other evidence in HTA (e.g., in cost-effectiveness analysis), but HTA bodies are willing to incorporate patient preferences in other HTA sections as supportive evidence. To allow for that use, future work should focus on meeting HTA and payer needs when conducting patient preference studies and on education of HTA and payer representatives regarding these studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32856278
doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00449-0
pii: 10.1007/s40271-020-00449-0
pmc: PMC7794204
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
119-128Références
J Mark Access Health Policy. 2014 Apr 01;2:
pubmed: 27226836
Patient. 2019 Oct;12(5):513-526
pubmed: 31222436
Value Health. 2019 Nov;22(11):1318-1328
pubmed: 31708070
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011 Jan;27(1):31-42
pubmed: 21262085
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Jul;29(3):290-300
pubmed: 23863189
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Nov 19;12:173
pubmed: 23163976
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017 Jan;33(5):562-569
pubmed: 29065947
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Jun 20;14:273
pubmed: 24950739
Patient. 2018 Jun;11(3):249-252
pubmed: 29500706
Patient. 2017 Jun;10(3):263-266
pubmed: 28247251
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018 Jan;34(1):105-110
pubmed: 29277175
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010 Jul;26(3):334-40
pubmed: 20584364
Front Pharmacol. 2019 Dec 03;10:1395
pubmed: 31849657
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016 Sep;30(9):1454-64
pubmed: 27431827
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Oct 4;19(1):189
pubmed: 31585538
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Jul;25 Suppl 1:112-9
pubmed: 19500440
Patient. 2018 Dec;11(6):581-589
pubmed: 30051315
Drug Discov Today. 2019 Jan;24(1):57-68
pubmed: 30266656
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007 Winter;23(1):30-5
pubmed: 17234014
Front Med (Lausanne). 2018 Oct 11;5:285
pubmed: 30364285
Value Health. 2017 Feb;20(2):244-250
pubmed: 28237203
Patient. 2020 Apr;13(2):145-149
pubmed: 31942698
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Jul;25 Suppl 1:53-60
pubmed: 19527534
Front Pharmacol. 2019 Sep 18;10:1009
pubmed: 31619989
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014 Dec;14(6):785-94
pubmed: 25135194
Front Med (Lausanne). 2018 Sep 07;5:251
pubmed: 30246010