Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35146487›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medical technology2021

Can We Afford to Exclude Patients Throughout Health Technology Assessment?

Janet L Wale, David Chandler, Deborah Collyar, Dominique Hamerlijnck, Roberto Saldana, Zack Pemberton-Whitely

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medical technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Janet L WaleHTAi Patient and Citizen Involvement Interest Group (PCIG) Chair, Brunswick, VIC, Australia.
David ChandlerPsoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Alliance (PAPAA), St Albans, United Kingdom.
Deborah CollyarPatient Advocates in Research (PAIR), Danville, CA, United States.
Dominique HamerlijnckPatient Expert European and Dutch Lung Foundation, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Roberto SaldanaSpanish Platform European Patients' Academy on Therapeutic Innovation (EUPATI), Madrid, Spain.
Zack Pemberton-WhitelyAcute Leukemia Advocates Network and Leukaemia Patient Advocates Foundation, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health technology assessment (HTA) is intended to determine the value of health technologies and, once a technology is recommended for funding, bridge clinical research and practice. Understanding the values and beliefs expressed by patients and health professionals can help guide this knowledge transfer and work toward managing the expectations of end users. We gathered patient and patient group leader experiences to gain insights into the roles that patients and patient advocacy groups are playing. We argue that through partnerships and co-creation between HTA professionals, researchers and patient advocates we can strengthen the HTA process and better align with service delivery where person-centered care and shared decision making are key elements. Patient experiences and knowledge are important to the democratization of evidence and the legitimacy of HTAs. Patient preference studies are used to balance benefits with potential harms of technologies, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can measure what matters to patients over time. A change in culture in HTA bodies is occurring and with further transformative thinking patients can be involved in every step of the HTA process. Patients have a right to be involved in HTAs, with patients' values central to HTA deliberations on a technology and where patients can provide valuable insights to inform HTA decision-making; and in ensuring that HTA methodologies evolve. By evaluating the implementation of HTA recommendations we can determine how HTA benefits patients and their communities. Our shared commitment can positively effect the common good and provide benefits to individual patients and their communities.

Indexed as

health technology assessmentpatient engagementpatient involvementpatient preference studiespatient-reported outcomesperson-centeredvalue

Identifiers

PMID35146487
PMCPMC8821945

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.