Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37732420›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2023

International overview of health technology assessment training tools and materials for patients and consumers.

Eunice Low, Joëlle André-Vert, Gaëlle Fanelli, Margaret Galbraith

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Competencies for health technology assessment professionals: a scoping review and content analysis.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026
    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 1 institution in 1 country.

Eunice LowDepartment of Professional Practice Assessment, Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Saint-Denis, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5824-5252
Joëlle André-VertDepartment of Professional Practice Assessment, Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Saint-Denis, France.
Gaëlle FanelliDepartment of Professional Practice Assessment, Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Saint-Denis, France.
Margaret GalbraithDepartment of Professional Practice Assessment, Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Saint-Denis, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6064-5957
Santé Publique France · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe study, conducted by the French National Authority for Health (HAS), aimed to identify available online health technology assessment (HTA) training tools for patients, specifically those used by HTA bodies (HTAbs) and major selected European and international patient and consumer groups (PCGs), to inform an HTA training approach for HAS.

methodsA literature search, a review of selected websites, semi-structured interviews with HTAbs and patient groups, and discussion within a dedicated working group to help target the needs and preferences of patients and consumers were conducted. Online HTA training tools relating to HTA and patient and public involvement (PPI), published or translated into English or French, were included in the study results.

resultsEighty-two online HTA training tools for patients and consumers were selected according to the specified inclusion criteria coming from sixteen international HTAbs, nine European and international PCGs, and thirteen other organizations. Two main categories emerged: the first relating to HTA and the second relating to PPI in HTA. The formats of these tools ranged from interactive and non-interactive formats with varying accessibility and assessment methods. No journal articles mentioned explicitly the content and format of PCG training tools.

conclusionsThis research served as a basis for HAS to develop their own HTA training tools and materials for patients and consumers. Two training tools were subsequently developed, guided by the needs and preferences of a patient and consumer working group, and were published on the HAS website in November 2022.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansPatientseducationhealth technology assessmentpatient and public involvementpatient engagementtraining

Identifiers

PMID37732420
PMCPMC11569957
OpenAlexW4386910547

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.