ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2020
Co-construction of health technology assessment recommendations with patients: An example with cardiac defibrillator replacement.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- International practices, barriers, and enablers for patient and public involvement in pricing and reimbursement decision-making: a mixed-methods study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Chatbot -assisted self-assessment (CASA): Co-designing an AI -powered behaviour change intervention for ethnic minorities.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Assessing medical devices: a qualitative study from the validate perspective.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 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
- Roles, outcomes, and enablers within research partnerships: A rapid review of the literature on patient and public involvement and engagement in health research.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Review
- 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
- Artificial Intelligence and Health Technology Assessment: Anticipating a New Level of Complexity.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- 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
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThe National Institute of Excellence in Health and Social Services (INESSS), which functions as the Québec health technology assessment (HTA) agency, tested a new way to engage patients along with health-care professionals in the co-construction of recommendations regarding implantable cardioverter-defibrillator replacement.
objectiveThe objective of this article was to describe the process of co-construction of recommendations and to propose methods of building best practices for patient involvement (PI) in HTA.
designThroughout the process, documents were collected and participant observations were made. Individual interviews were conducted with patients, health-care professionals and the INESSS scientific team, from January to March 2018.
resultsThree committees were established: an expert patient committee to reflect on patient experience literature; an expert health professional committee to reflect on medical literature; and a co-construction committee through which both patients and health-care professionals contributed to develop the recommendations. The expert patients validated and contextualized a literature review produced by the scientific team. This allowed the scientists to consider aspects related to the patient experience and to integrate the feedback from patients into HTA recommendations. The most important factor contributing to a positive PI experience was the structured methodology for selecting patient participants, and a key factor that inhibited the process was a lack of training in PI on the part of the scientific team.
conclusionsThis experience demonstrates that it is possible to co-construct recommendations, even for technically complex HTA subjects, through a more democratic process than usual which led to more patient-focused guidance.
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.