Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37465169›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Recommendations for patient involvement in health technology assessment in Central and Eastern European countries.

Ivett Jakab, Maria Dimitrova, François Houÿez, Tamás Bereczky, Miroslava Fövényes, Zorana Maravic, Ivica Belina, Christian Andriciuc, Krisztina Tóth, Oresta Piniazhko and 18 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Rethinking Slovenia's HTA System.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. How Patients Can Contribute to the Assessments of Health Technologies.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

28 authors.

Ivett JakabSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Maria DimitrovaFaculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria.
François HouÿezEuropean Organisation for Rare Diseases (EURORDIS), Paris, France.
Tamás BereczkyPatvocates GmbH, Riemerling, Germany.
Miroslava FövényesLymfoma Slovensko, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Zorana MaravicDigestive Cancers Europe, Brussels, Belgium.
Ivica BelinaCoalition of Associations in Healthcare, Zagreb, Croatia.
Christian AndriciucRomanian Federation of Diabetes Associations, Cluj Napoca, Romania.
Krisztina TóthSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Oresta PiniazhkoHealth Technology Assessment Department of State Expert Centre, Ministry of Health of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.
Rok HrenSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Iñaki Gutierrez-IbarluzeaBasque Foundation for Health Innovation and Research, Landa, Spain.
Marcin CzechHead of Pharmacoeconomic Department, Institute of Mother and Child, Warsaw, Poland.
Tomas TesarDepartment of Organisation and Management in Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Maciej NiewadaDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
László LorenzoviciSyreon Research Romania, Tirgu Mures, Romania.
Maria KamushevaFaculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Manoela ManovaFaculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Alexandra SavovaFaculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Zornitsa MitkovaFaculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Konstantin TachkovFaculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Bertalan NémethSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Zsuzsanna Ida PetykóSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.
Dalia DawoudScience, Policy and Research Programme, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, United Kingdom.
Diana DelnoijNational Health Care Institute (ZIN), Diemen, Netherlands.
Saskia KniesNational Health Care Institute (ZIN), Diemen, Netherlands.
Wim GoettschNational Health Care Institute (ZIN), Diemen, Netherlands.
Zoltán KalóSyreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Meaningful patient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is essential in ensuring that the interests of the affected patient population, their families, and the general public are accurately reflected in coverage and reimbursement decisions. Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries are generally at less advanced stages of implementing HTA, which is particularly true for patient involvement activities. As part of the Horizon2020 HTx project, this research aimed to form recommendations for critical barriers to patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries. Methods: Built on previous research findings on potential barriers, a prioritisation survey was conducted online with CEE stakeholders. Recommendations for prioritised barriers were formed through a face-to-face workshop by CEE stakeholders and HTx experts. Results: A total of 105 stakeholders from 13 CEE countries completed the prioritisation survey and identified 12 of the 22 potential barriers as highly important. The workshop had 36 participants representing 9 CEE countries, and 5 Western European countries coming together to discuss solutions in order to form recommendations based on best practices, real-life experience, and transferability aspects. Stakeholder groups involved in both phases included HTA organisation representatives, payers, patients, caregivers, patient organisation representatives, patient experts, health care providers, academic and non-academic researchers, health care consultants and health technology manufacturers/providers. As a result, 12 recommendations were formed specified to the CEE region's context, but potentially useful for a broader geographic audience. Conclusion: In this paper, we present 12 recommendations for meaningful, systematic, and sustainable patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries. Our hope is that engaging more than a hundred CEE stakeholders in the study helped to spread awareness of the importance and potential of patient involvement and that the resulting recommendations provide tangible steps for the way forward. Future studies shall focus on country-specific case studies of the implemented recommendations.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalEuropeHumansbarrier prioritisationCentral and Eastern Europe countriesdecision-makinghealth technology assessmentpatient involvementrecommendationsreimbursementstakeholder perspectives

Identifiers

PMID37465169
PMCPMC10350487

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.