Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41450903›Full record

ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2025

How Patients Can Contribute to the Assessments of Health Technologies.

François Houÿez, Julien Delaye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 2025. 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

2 authors.

François HouÿezEuropean Organisation for Rare Diseases (Eurordis), 75014 Paris, France; julien.delaye@eurordis.org.
Julien DelayeEuropean Organisation for Rare Diseases (Eurordis), 75014 Paris, France; julien.delaye@eurordis.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the process of determining whether a health technology should be covered by healthcare systems, patients and their representatives were initially excluded from both evaluations and decision-making. In Europe, direct dialogue between patient organisations and regulatory authorities-particularly in the pharmaceutical sector-began in the early 1990s. It was only decades later, as the high cost of medicines created new challenges, that authorities recognised the necessity of engaging with patients. Patients' contributions to the assessment of a health technology begin with discussions about the need for the technology in question. Initially, these discussions involve the developer, and later-after research and development-regulators, HTA assessors, and payers. Given that multiple technologies may be under development, patients and their organisations often prioritise those that generate the most interest within the patient community. They can then share their perspectives with evaluators during the horizon-scanning phase. Another key contribution is the role patients play in guiding clinical research by participating in scientific advice. Finally, during the assessment and appraisal stages, various methods are used to gather their views.

Indexed as

appraisalcapacity buildingcommunity advisory boardshealth technology assessmenthorizon scanningmentoring programmepatent engagement/involvementscientific advice

Identifiers

PMID41450903
PMCPMC12733746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.