ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
Requirements for patient-reported outcomes and data analytics in health technology assessment in England, France and Germany, and the need for methods harmonization across European markets: a qualitative interview study.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore methods for collection, reporting and analysis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in health technology assessment (HTA) in England, France, and Germany, and understand the impact and challenges associated with using PRO data in HTA.
methodsA targeted literature review (TLR) was conducted in November 2023 to identify PRO-related data specifications for HTA in European markets and inform an interview discussion guide. Qualitative, semi-structured 60-minute interviews with key opinion leaders (KOLs) with HTA- and PRO-related expertise in England, France and Germany were conducted to gain expert perspectives on PRO and HTA practices, and to identify opportunities for HTA harmonization across European markets. The interview transcripts were analyzed using content analysis methods and key results extracted by a single analyst into Microsoft® Excel.
resultsKOLs from England (n = 4), France (n = 3) and Germany (n = 5) were interviewed. Availability of guidance on PRO data collection, analysis and reporting in HTA varies between the HTA bodies included. Guidance, where available, is country specific, and therefore lacks harmonization across included markets. In terms of the perceived impact of PRO data on HTA decision making, KOLs from Germany gave a high rating, while KOLs from England and France gave ratings of low to high impact and moderate to high impact, respectively. It was reported by KOLs in all markets that PROs are expected for submissions in highly symptomatic and burdensome conditions, and that the relative importance of PRO to HTA outcomes varies by disease. KOLs cited challenges with using PRO data in HTA. Commonly cited challenges were related to methodological considerations and included: ‘no/suboptimal PRO data collection/submission (e.g., due to value perceptions)’ and ‘selected instruments not fit-for-purpose/PRO benefits not adequately represented in models’. Adding to the challenges with using PRO data in HTA, there are inconsistencies between Joint Clinical Assessment (JCA) guidance and PRO data requirements for HTA in included markets.
conclusionsThere is a lack of transparency and harmonization in terms of the requirements for PRO data collection, analysis and reporting for HTA in England, Germany and France. Enhanced transparency of HTA requirements will facilitate harmonization efforts and may be supported by JCA.
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.