ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2018
Decision making in NICE single technological appraisals: How does NICE incorporate patient perspectives?
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of Online Interactive Decision Tools on Women's Decision-Making Regarding Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Community participation and stakeholder engagement in determining health service coverage: A systematic review and framework synthesis to assess effectiveness.Journal of global health · 2023Pooled it
- Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Understanding the Normativity of Health Technology Assessment: Ontological, Moral, and Epistemological Commitments.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026Article
- International practices, barriers, and enablers for patient and public involvement in pricing and reimbursement decision-making: a mixed-methods study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Engaging stakeholders along health technology assessment pathways: a scoping review of international practice.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Evaluation of implementation of patient involvement in Taiwan's pharmaceutical reimbursement decision-making process.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Learning strategies for laypeople to participate in health technology assessment: a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- "Blanket rules just don't work": Qualitative exploration of the relative value of child and adult quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains for health technology assessment.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of patient participation in health technology assessment systems worldwide: trends and practices.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Development of a disease-specific health utility score for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from a discrete choice experiment patient preference study.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- An empirical ethics study of the coherence of NICE technology appraisal policy and its implications for moral justification.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Would shared decision-making be useful in breast cancer screening programmes? A qualitative study using focus group discussions to gather evidence from French women with different socioeconomic backgrounds.BMC public health · 2024Article
- How to mobilise users' experiential knowledge in the evaluation of advanced technologies and practices in Quebec? The example of the permanent users' and relatives' panel.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Patient engagement in the development and delivery of healthcare services: a systematic scoping review.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Patient-based evidence: its role in decision making on end-of-life, orphan, and ultra-orphan medicines.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Article
- Necessity under construction - societal weighing rationality in the appraisal of health care technologies.Health economics, policy, and law · 2021Article
- 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 · 2021Article
- Can We Afford to Exclude Patients Throughout Health Technology Assessment?Frontiers in medical technology · 2021Article
- Co-construction of health technology assessment recommendations with patients: An example with cardiac defibrillator replacement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has an explicit mandate to include patient and public involvement in the appraisal of medicines to be available for funding on the NHS. NICE involves an appraisal committee who are required to take on board experiential evidence from patient experts alongside population-based evidence on clinical and cost-effectiveness when making a decision whether to fund a drug.
objectiveThis paper considers how NICE Single Technological Appraisal (STA) committees attempt to incorporate the views of patients in making decisions about funding medicines on the NHS.
methodsA prospective design was employed to follow three pharmaceutical products involving three different appraisal committees. Three data collection methods were used: analysis of documentary evidence sent by NICE, non-participant unstructured observations of the open and closed sessions of meetings and qualitative interviews. SETTINGS AND
participantsUnstructured non-participant observations were carried out at nine STA meetings, and 41 semi-structured interviews were undertaken with committee members from NICE's STA committees, patient experts, analysts from NICE's project team and drug manufacturers.
resultsOur analysis showed how the committees displayed a preference for an ideal-type of patient representative, disagreement among the committee when weighing-up patient statements in the STA process and more pre-preparation support for patient involvement.
conclusionsAlthough NICE has attempted to adopt an approach flexible to patients and carers through formal decision-making arrangements that incorporate patient views, nonetheless, the processes of the STAs can in fact undermine the very evidence collected from patient representatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.