Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41345765›Full record

ReviewApplied health economics and health policy2026

Improving Consumer Engagement in Health Technology Assessment and Decision Making: Lessons from 'Values in Science'.

Isabella Carnovale, Kevin Elliott, Ian Kerridge, Wendy Lipworth

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Applied health economics and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Isabella CarnovaleDiscipline of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Kevin ElliottLyman Briggs College, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Ian KerridgeDiscipline of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Wendy LipworthDiscipline of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, NSW, 2109, Australia. wendy.lipworth@mq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-0234-657X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health technology assessments (HTA) and related decision making by regulators, payers and clinical policymakers (henceforth HTA-DM) are not simply technical processes, but normative ones, shaped by economic, moral, and scientific values. Since these value-laden decisions affect consumers, it is broadly accepted that their values need to be taken into consideration in HTA-DM and that they should be actively engaged in some aspects of these processes. This paper begins by examining current approaches to consumer engagement in HTA-DM. We then identify key challenges inherent in meaningful consumer participation, including procedural obstacles, representation issues, and difficulties in values interpretation. After briefly reviewing existing responses to these challenges, we demonstrate how insights from the philosophy of science-particularly scholarship on values in scientific inquiry-can provide new insights into the challenges of integrating consumers' values into HTA-DM and offer some strategies for more targeted and effective consumer involvement.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationDecision MakingTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumans

Identifiers

PMID41345765

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.