Daniel Widmer, Hermenegildo Marcos Carrera, Jörg Ruof, Gunasekara Vidanamestrige Chamath Fernando, Patrick Ouvrard, Marie-Christine Bonnamour, Mary McCarthy, Shrikant Atreya
{"title":"Role of General Practitioners in European Health Technology Assessment, EU-HTA Innovation in Oncology as an Example.","authors":"Daniel Widmer, Hermenegildo Marcos Carrera, Jörg Ruof, Gunasekara Vidanamestrige Chamath Fernando, Patrick Ouvrard, Marie-Christine Bonnamour, Mary McCarthy, Shrikant Atreya","doi":"10.3390/jmahp14030057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Different from established clinical guideline workstreams, the participation of general practitioners (GPs) in the health technology assessment (HTA) process at the European level is new. There is a research gap in this domain. The European Union of General Practitioners (UEMO) is the political association of GPs in Europe and has been collaborating as a stakeholder in the creation of the European Regulation on HTA since 2017. The aim of our research is to provide a framework for GPs'role in EU HTA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Mixed methods: questionnaire and focus groups.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Representatives of national medical/GP associations of 17 Member States of the EU and five EU non-member countries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most respondents supported GP involvement in the development of clinical recommendations relevant to general practice. Respondents emphasized that UEMO must turn to WONCA-Europe, the academic society of GPs, when scientific input is required. Among the ten priority topics for HTA in oncology, four emerged as most relevant for the GPs: 1. Conscientious prescription of interventions considering over- and under-medicalization, 2. establishing a system for continuity of care integrating palliative care, 3. ensuring evidence-based medicine, and 4. promoting collaborative care and considering workload.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>The GP can contribute to the debate by defending these four priorities. Presenting the difficulties in this debate can contribute to a better understanding of the implementation of new technology in the real world.</p>","PeriodicalId":73811,"journal":{"name":"Journal of market access & health policy","volume":"14 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13608814/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of market access & health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp14030057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Different from established clinical guideline workstreams, the participation of general practitioners (GPs) in the health technology assessment (HTA) process at the European level is new. There is a research gap in this domain. The European Union of General Practitioners (UEMO) is the political association of GPs in Europe and has been collaborating as a stakeholder in the creation of the European Regulation on HTA since 2017. The aim of our research is to provide a framework for GPs'role in EU HTA.
Methods: Mixed methods: questionnaire and focus groups.
Participants: Representatives of national medical/GP associations of 17 Member States of the EU and five EU non-member countries.
Results: Most respondents supported GP involvement in the development of clinical recommendations relevant to general practice. Respondents emphasized that UEMO must turn to WONCA-Europe, the academic society of GPs, when scientific input is required. Among the ten priority topics for HTA in oncology, four emerged as most relevant for the GPs: 1. Conscientious prescription of interventions considering over- and under-medicalization, 2. establishing a system for continuity of care integrating palliative care, 3. ensuring evidence-based medicine, and 4. promoting collaborative care and considering workload.
Discussion and conclusions: The GP can contribute to the debate by defending these four priorities. Presenting the difficulties in this debate can contribute to a better understanding of the implementation of new technology in the real world.