Patient engagement for the development of equity-focused health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations: a case study of two Canadian HTA organizations.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Rosiane Simeon, Abdulah Al Ameer, Shehzad Ali, Kumanan Wilson, Janet H Roberts, Ian D Graham, Peter Tugwell, Vivian A Welch
{"title":"Patient engagement for the development of equity-focused health technology assessment (HTA) recommendations: a case study of two Canadian HTA organizations.","authors":"Rosiane Simeon, Abdulah Al Ameer, Shehzad Ali, Kumanan Wilson, Janet H Roberts, Ian D Graham, Peter Tugwell, Vivian A Welch","doi":"10.1017/S0266462325000182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health technology assessment (HTA) is a form of policy analysis that informs decisions about funding and scaling up health technologies to improve health outcomes. An equity-focused HTA recommendation explicitly addresses the impact of health technologies on individuals disadvantaged in society because of specific health needs or social conditions. However, more evidence is needed on the relationships between patient engagement processes and the development of equity-focused HTA recommendations.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study is to assess relationships between patient engagement processes and the development of equity-focused HTA recommendations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed sixty HTA reports published between 2013 and 2021 from two Canadian organizations: Canada's Drug Agency and Ontario Health.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Quantitative analysis of the HTA reports showed that direct patient engagement (odds ratio (OR): 3.85; 95 percent confidence interval (CI): 2.40-6.20) and consensus in decision-making (OR: 2.27; 95 percent CI: 1.35-3.84) were more likely to be associated with the development of equity-focused HTA recommendations than indirect patient engagement (OR: .26; 95 percent CI: .16-.41) and voting (OR: .44; 95 percent CI: .26-.73).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results can inform the development of patient engagement strategies in HTA. These findings have implications for practice, research, and policy. They provide valuable insights into HTA.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":"e27"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12086597/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462325000182","RegionNum":4,"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: Health technology assessment (HTA) is a form of policy analysis that informs decisions about funding and scaling up health technologies to improve health outcomes. An equity-focused HTA recommendation explicitly addresses the impact of health technologies on individuals disadvantaged in society because of specific health needs or social conditions. However, more evidence is needed on the relationships between patient engagement processes and the development of equity-focused HTA recommendations.

Objectives: The objective of this study is to assess relationships between patient engagement processes and the development of equity-focused HTA recommendations.

Methods: We analyzed sixty HTA reports published between 2013 and 2021 from two Canadian organizations: Canada's Drug Agency and Ontario Health.

Results: Quantitative analysis of the HTA reports showed that direct patient engagement (odds ratio (OR): 3.85; 95 percent confidence interval (CI): 2.40-6.20) and consensus in decision-making (OR: 2.27; 95 percent CI: 1.35-3.84) were more likely to be associated with the development of equity-focused HTA recommendations than indirect patient engagement (OR: .26; 95 percent CI: .16-.41) and voting (OR: .44; 95 percent CI: .26-.73).

Conclusion: The results can inform the development of patient engagement strategies in HTA. These findings have implications for practice, research, and policy. They provide valuable insights into HTA.

患者参与制定以公平为重点的卫生技术评估建议:对加拿大两个卫生技术评估组织的案例研究。
背景:卫生技术评估(HTA)是一种政策分析形式,为有关资助和推广卫生技术以改善卫生结果的决策提供信息。卫生技术协会的一项以公平为重点的建议明确涉及卫生技术对由于特殊卫生需要或社会条件而处于社会不利地位的个人的影响。然而,需要更多的证据来证明患者参与过程与以公平为重点的HTA建议的发展之间的关系。目的:本研究的目的是评估患者参与过程与以公平为中心的HTA建议的发展之间的关系。方法:我们分析了2013年至2021年间发表的60份HTA报告,这些报告来自两个加拿大组织:加拿大药品管理局和安大略省卫生部。结果:HTA报告的定量分析显示,直接患者参与(优势比(OR): 3.85;95%置信区间(CI): 2.40-6.20)和决策共识(OR: 2.27;95% CI: 1.35-3.84)更可能与以公平为重点的HTA建议的发展相关,而不是间接的患者参与(OR: 0.26;95% CI: 0.16 - 0.41)和投票(OR: 0.44;95% CI: 0.26 - 0.73)。结论:研究结果可为HTA患者参与策略的制定提供参考。这些发现对实践、研究和政策都有启示意义。它们为HTA提供了有价值的见解。
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
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
15.60%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信