Does Consumer Engagement in Health Technology Assessment Enhance or Undermine Equity?

Narcyz Ghinea, Wendy Lipworth, Ian Kerridge

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

Lead Essay: Money, Equity and Access to Medicines.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Narcyz GhineaThe University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Level 1, Building 1, Medical Foundation Building, NSW, 2006, Australia. narcyz.ghinea@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1457-7252

Wendy LipworthThe University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Level 1, Building 1, Medical Foundation Building, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Ian KerridgeThe University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, Level 1, Building 1, Medical Foundation Building, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1080673

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Consumer engagement in decisions about the funding of medicines is often framed as a good in and of itself and as an activity that should be universally encouraged. A common justification for calls for consumer engagement is that it enhances equity. In this paper we systematically critique this assumption. We show that consumer engagement may undermine equity as well as enhance it and show that a simple relationship cannot be assumed but must be justified and demonstrated. In concluding, we present a number of challenges that need to be overcome in order for consumer engagement to contribute to health technology assessment in a morally and politically sound manner.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationPatient ParticipationHealth EquityHumansTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalConsumer engagementEquityHealth technology assessmentMedicines fundingPatient rights

Identifiers

PMID32060818

DOI10.1007/s11673-020-09962-1

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.