ReviewPharmacoEconomics2026
Improving Collaborative Engagement in Health State Valuation: A Scoping Review of Current Practices and Emerging Recommendations.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveCollaborative engagement with individuals invested in or affected by health research, beyond researchers themselves, is advantageous and encouraged by major funding bodies. However, the degree of collaborative engagement in health state valuation is unclear. A scoping review was conducted to (i) identify recommendations on best practice in collaborative engagement in health economics and related literature; (ii) identify examples of collaborative engagement in valuation studies; and (iii) map (ii) onto (i) to identify current practice and future recommendations.
methodsEight databases were searched in March-May 2024, with grey literature searches in August-September 2024. For objective (i), reports or manuscripts in health economics or patient-reported outcome measure development/evaluation of any date providing recommendations for collaborative engagement were included. For objective (ii), articles published since 2019 featuring health state valuation and collaborative engagement were included. Best practice recommendations were extracted and thematically synthesised. Examples of collaborative engagement were extracted and mapped against recommendations.
resultsTwenty-two records featuring recommendations and 15 valuation studies were included. A 15-item framework of emerging best practice recommendations for collaborative engagement was synthesised. Most examples of collaborative engagement involved patients and/or experts helping inform health states for valuation. There was no evidence for 9 out of 15 synthesised recommendations having been applied in any of the valuation studies and only minimal evidence was extracted for the remaining six.
conclusionsCollaborative engagement in health state valuation is underdeveloped and unaligned with literature recommendations. A 15-point framework has been developed as a strategic starting point for developing guidance to improve practice in the field.
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.