Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33402216›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2021

Patients and public are important stakeholders in health technology assessment but the level of involvement is low - a call to action.

Janet L Wale, Samuel Thomas, Dominique Hamerlijnck, Ronald Hollander

Open access · goldAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
23.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Patient involvement in health technology assessment: a new process in Singapore.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A situational and stakeholder analysis of health technology assessment in Zimbabwe.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024
    Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Janet L WaleHTAi Patient and Citizen Involvement in HTA Interest Group (PCIG), 11A Lydia Street, Brunswick, Victoria, 3056, Australia. socrates1111@bigpond.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5483-8189
Samuel ThomasAvalere Health, 1201 New York Ave, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC, 20005, USA.
Dominique HamerlijnckPatient Expert European and Dutch Lung Foundation, EUPATI Fellow, HTAi PCIG Member, Zeeburgerkade 540, 1019HR, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ronald HollanderINCA International Neuroendocrine Cancer Alliance, Newton, Boston, MA 02461, USA.
Brunswick (United States) · USLung Foundation Netherlands · NLPrevea Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth technology assessment (HTA) agencies have an important role in the evaluation and approval of new technologies. They determine their value within a health system so to promote equitable, quality care with available healthcare resources. Many HTA agencies have some mechanism for involving patients in their processes, but there is great variability and an absence of comprehensive, robust practices for involvement. The accelerating pace of medical innovation creates a need to improve the depth and breadth of patient involvement in the HTA process. MAIN BODY: In this 'Call to action', we present ideas from three HTA expert commentaries calling for collaborative learning and to share innovative ideas for changes in HTA. We also draw on examples of HTA agencies creatively pursuing this goal. We propose a 'Call to action' for HTA stakeholders to undertake serious dialogue with patient advocates aimed at creating shared goals. HTA agencies can use these goals to ensure meaningful patient involvement at every step of the HTA process. Five elements are explored. In 'Recognizing the value of shared purpose', we highlight examples of HTA agencies that have patients working in partnership with medical practitioners and HTA staff. Results include improved processes that instil confidence. 'Committing to patient involvement as part of HTA culture' highlights several initiatives aimed at changes in HTA organisational culture to be more inclusive of patients. In 'Aligning patient and HTA goals' we cite work in Belgium and New Zealand which places a greater emphasis on quality of life rather than life expectancy and cost-effectiveness. By 'Integrating patient involvement at every step of the HTA process' patients can make vital contributions at every stage of the HTA process. We provide two examples of where HTA agencies have successfully involved patients early in the process in order to broaden the scope of evaluations. 'Developing a common language and working together' can support transformative dialogue through 'unified language'.

conclusionThe authors of this commentary ask that agencies and stakeholders involved in HTA take up this call to work together for visionary and transformative elevation of the voice of patients in HTA worldwide.

Indexed as

Communication and partnershipDeliberative processEvidence-informedHealth technology assessmentHTAMulti-stakeholderPatient and public involvementPatient leadershipScience of participationTransformative partnership

Identifiers

PMID33402216
PMCPMC7783693
OpenAlexW3118699238

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.