Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Patients and Members of the Public Contributing to Rapid Health Technology Assessments for NICE: A Qualitative Study

IF 3 3区医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Health Expectations Pub Date : 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1111/hex.70109

Eugenie Evelynne Johnson, Debbie Smith, Becky Harmston, Emily Hunter, Emma Belilios, Fiona Pearson

{"title":"Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Patients and Members of the Public Contributing to Rapid Health Technology Assessments for NICE: A Qualitative Study","authors":"Eugenie Evelynne Johnson, Debbie Smith, Becky Harmston, Emily Hunter, Emma Belilios, Fiona Pearson","doi":"10.1111/hex.70109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Evidence and External Assessment Groups (EAGs) assist in the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence's Technology Appraisal programme by either critiquing evidence provided by companies on different health technologies, or by carrying out an independent search and evaluation of the published evidence. Historically, there has been little patient and public involvement within the work of EAGs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To identify key barriers and facilitators to patient and public involvement in EAG Reports feeding into the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's Health Technology Appraisal process.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A primary qualitative study consisting of one-to-one interviews with EAG researchers and focus groups with members of the public. From anonymised transcripts, data were deductively coded using a framework analysis against the Theoretical Domains Framework and translated to the COM-B model. Coding was triangulated through inductive thematic analysis, guided by the principles of Braun and Clarke.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Ten researchers were interviewed and four focus groups with a total of 26 members of the public were undertaken. Both EAG researchers and the public felt they did not have enough knowledge, time and money to be able to embed patient and public involvement; researchers suggested that patient and public involvement might not be relevant to the scope of their Reports. Members of the public highlighted a lack of awareness of the Technology Appraisal process and that jargon may stop them being involved. Both researchers and members of the public said having specific guidance on how to embed patient and public involvement in EAG Reports would be helpful, including guidance on how to write plain language summaries.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The perspectives of both EAG researchers and members of the public suggest work needs to be conducted to produce frameworks for patient and public involvement and plain language summaries within EAG Reports specifically. Additionally, that further awareness-raising of Technology Appraisals and the role of EAGs would help members of the public to contribute effectively to EAG Reports.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient or Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>Two members of the public were part of the research team and governed all stages of the research in accordance with the UK Standards for Public Involvement.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"27 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11573722/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70109","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Evidence and External Assessment Groups (EAGs) assist in the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence's Technology Appraisal programme by either critiquing evidence provided by companies on different health technologies, or by carrying out an independent search and evaluation of the published evidence. Historically, there has been little patient and public involvement within the work of EAGs.

Objective

To identify key barriers and facilitators to patient and public involvement in EAG Reports feeding into the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's Health Technology Appraisal process.

Methods

A primary qualitative study consisting of one-to-one interviews with EAG researchers and focus groups with members of the public. From anonymised transcripts, data were deductively coded using a framework analysis against the Theoretical Domains Framework and translated to the COM-B model. Coding was triangulated through inductive thematic analysis, guided by the principles of Braun and Clarke.

Results

Ten researchers were interviewed and four focus groups with a total of 26 members of the public were undertaken. Both EAG researchers and the public felt they did not have enough knowledge, time and money to be able to embed patient and public involvement; researchers suggested that patient and public involvement might not be relevant to the scope of their Reports. Members of the public highlighted a lack of awareness of the Technology Appraisal process and that jargon may stop them being involved. Both researchers and members of the public said having specific guidance on how to embed patient and public involvement in EAG Reports would be helpful, including guidance on how to write plain language summaries.

Conclusion

The perspectives of both EAG researchers and members of the public suggest work needs to be conducted to produce frameworks for patient and public involvement and plain language summaries within EAG Reports specifically. Additionally, that further awareness-raising of Technology Appraisals and the role of EAGs would help members of the public to contribute effectively to EAG Reports.

Patient or Public Contribution

Two members of the public were part of the research team and governed all stages of the research in accordance with the UK Standards for Public Involvement.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

探索患者和公众为 NICE 快速健康技术评估做出贡献的障碍和促进因素：定性研究。

背景：证据和外部评估小组（EAGs）协助国家健康与护理卓越研究所（National Institute of Health and Care Excellence）的技术评估计划，对公司提供的不同健康技术的证据进行评论，或对已发表的证据进行独立的搜索和评估。从历史上看，患者和公众很少参与 EAG 的工作：目的：确定患者和公众参与 EAG 报告的主要障碍和促进因素，并将其纳入国家健康与护理卓越研究所的健康技术评估流程：主要定性研究包括对 EAG 研究人员的一对一访谈和对公众成员的焦点小组访谈。根据匿名记录，采用理论领域框架分析法对数据进行演绎编码，并转化为 COM-B 模型。在布劳恩和克拉克原则的指导下，通过归纳主题分析对编码进行了三角测量：对 10 名研究人员进行了访谈，并与共计 26 名公众进行了四次焦点小组讨论。EAG的研究人员和公众都认为他们没有足够的知识、时间和资金来嵌入患者和公众参与；研究人员认为患者和公众参与可能与他们的报告范围无关。公众成员强调，他们对技术评估过程缺乏了解，专业术语可能会阻止他们参与其中。研究人员和公众成员均表示，就如何将患者和公众参与纳入EAG报告提供具体指导将有所帮助，包括指导如何撰写通俗易懂的摘要：东亚组研究人员和公众的观点表明，需要开展工作，制定患者和公众参与的框架，并在东亚组报告中专门使用通俗易懂的语言进行总结。此外，进一步提高对技术评估和EAG作用的认识将有助于公众为EAG报告做出有效贡献：两名公众成员是研究小组的成员，并根据英国公众参与标准对研究的各个阶段进行管理。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

9.40%

发文量

251

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.