ArticleBMC health services research2025
Validation of a method for synthesizing public consultations to inform decision-making in health technology assessment (HTA) in Brazil: a Delphi consensus.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPublic consultations (PCs) are a form of public engagement used to inform decision-making on the incorporation of new technologies into health systems. Although widely employed by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, there is no consensus on the best methods for analyzing and synthesizing PCs. This study proposes a novel method for analyzing and synthesizing PCs, using elements of content analysis, Interface de R pour les Analyses Multidimensionnelles de Textes et de Questionnaires (IRaMuTeQ) software, and guiding questions specific to HTA. The goal is to offer a streamlined, systematic and transparent approach that ensures reproducible and reliable analyses. The aim of this study is to validate the proposed method for analyzing PCs in HTA through face and content validity.
methodsThe Delphi technique was applied to validate the method. A group of 20 Brazilian experts with experience in HTA, social participation, IRaMuTeQ, or qualitative research, was invited to participate. Consensus was defined as 70% "agree" or "strongly agree" responses or an interquartile range ≤ 1. Comments were summarized and categorized by theme. A pilot study was conducted before the Delphi panel.
resultsFifteen experts participated in the face validity, and 14 in the content validity. Both validations achieved over 80% consensus in the first round. The face validity confirmed five methodological steps, including corpus analysis, corpus preparation and organization, data mining using IRaMuTeQ software, systematization, interpretation, and synthesis of the findings. The content validity results were deemed adequate, confirming the method provided sufficient information to understand PCs.
conclusionsThis study provides evidence for the validation of a method for the analysis and systematization of PCs. By incorporating key HTA characteristics, such as systematic and transparent processes, while still preserving the qualitative aspects of the data, the method can help make HTA more participatory, streamlined, and transparent, processes that include societal perspectives. The validated method is an initial strategy for systematizing PC analyses within HTA.
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.