ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024
Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Patients and Members of the Public Contributing to Rapid Health Technology Assessments for NICE: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Activity Within the 3DPiPPIn Trial: A Qualitative Exploration of Contributors' Perspectives on Their Impact.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- A rapid evaluation of the reporting and publishing practices of patient and public involvement and engagement in health research within a UK university institute.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- International practices, barriers, and enablers for patient and public involvement in pricing and reimbursement decision-making: a mixed-methods study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Patient and Public Involvement in Action: Shaping an Intergenerational Engagement Intervention in a Long-Term Care Facility in China.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Understanding the Scope, Intent and Extent of Published Conceptual Frameworks of Frameworks for Patient and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research: A Rapid Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence and External Assessment Groups (EAGs) assist in the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence's Technology Appraisal programme by either critiquing evidence provided by companies on different health technologies, or by carrying out an independent search and evaluation of the published evidence. Historically, there has been little patient and public involvement within the work of EAGs.
objectiveTo identify key barriers and facilitators to patient and public involvement in EAG Reports feeding into the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's Health Technology Appraisal process.
methodsA primary qualitative study consisting of one-to-one interviews with EAG researchers and focus groups with members of the public. From anonymised transcripts, data were deductively coded using a framework analysis against the Theoretical Domains Framework and translated to the COM-B model. Coding was triangulated through inductive thematic analysis, guided by the principles of Braun and Clarke.
resultsTen researchers were interviewed and four focus groups with a total of 26 members of the public were undertaken. Both EAG researchers and the public felt they did not have enough knowledge, time and money to be able to embed patient and public involvement; researchers suggested that patient and public involvement might not be relevant to the scope of their Reports. Members of the public highlighted a lack of awareness of the Technology Appraisal process and that jargon may stop them being involved. Both researchers and members of the public said having specific guidance on how to embed patient and public involvement in EAG Reports would be helpful, including guidance on how to write plain language summaries.
conclusionThe perspectives of both EAG researchers and members of the public suggest work needs to be conducted to produce frameworks for patient and public involvement and plain language summaries within EAG Reports specifically. Additionally, that further awareness-raising of Technology Appraisals and the role of EAGs would help members of the public to contribute effectively to EAG Reports. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two members of the public were part of the research team and governed all stages of the research in accordance with the UK Standards for Public Involvement.
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.