ArticleHealth economics, policy, and law2021
(Re)defining legitimacy in Canadian drug assessment policy? Comparing ideas over time.
Article in Health economics, policy, and law, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- International practices, barriers, and enablers for patient and public involvement in pricing and reimbursement decision-making: a mixed-methods study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- How are patient inputs considered in HTA? A thematic document analysis of NICE ultra-rare disease appraisals.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Article
- Assessing medical devices: a qualitative study from the validate perspective.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- Where National Medicines Policies Have Taken Us With Patient Involvement and Health Technology Assessment in Africa.Frontiers in medical technology · 2022Article
- Potential Barriers of Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment in Central and Eastern European Countries.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Can We Afford to Exclude Patients Throughout Health Technology Assessment?Frontiers in medical technology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How do experts judge the legitimacy of technical policy processes, and do their ideas change as these processes are opened to other stakeholders and the public? This research examines the adoption of public and patient involvement in pharmaceutical assessment in Canada. It finds tensions between scientific legitimacy that prioritizes rigor and objectivity, and democratic legitimacy that values inclusion and a broader range of evidence. In response to policy change, experts incorporate new ideas about democratic inputs and processes, while maintaining scientific policy goals. The research responds to calls for more precise measurement of ideas and ideational change and more evaluation of public and patient involvement in health policy. It helps us understand the significance of, and limits to, ideational change among experts in health policy domains that are highly technical and publicly salient. Understanding the way democratic and scientific legitimacy are negotiated in policy decisions has a wide applicability in health, but is particularly relevant during a global pandemic when evidence is being generated rapidly, decisions must be made quickly, and these decisions have a significant, immediate effect on the lives of all citizens.
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.