Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41975509›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2026

Making room for patients in economic evaluation: a commentary on current capacity and future directions.

Emily R Thompson, Mackenzie Wilson, Stuart G Nicholls, Dean A Fergusson, Manoj Lalu, Maureen Smith, Terry Hawrysh, Sharon Bede, Michael Halas, Linda Riches and 3 more

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 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

13 authors.

Emily R ThompsonOttawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, PO Box 201B, 501 Smyth Road, ON, K1H 8L6, Ottawa, Canada.
Mackenzie WilsonOttawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, PO Box 201B, 501 Smyth Road, ON, K1H 8L6, Ottawa, Canada.
Stuart G NichollsOttawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, PO Box 201B, 501 Smyth Road, ON, K1H 8L6, Ottawa, Canada.
Dean A FergussonOttawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, PO Box 201B, 501 Smyth Road, ON, K1H 8L6, Ottawa, Canada.
Manoj LaluOttawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, PO Box 201B, 501 Smyth Road, ON, K1H 8L6, Ottawa, Canada.
Maureen SmithPatient Partner, Health Economics and healthcare Resource Optimization (HERO) Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Terry HawryshPatient Partner, Health Economics and healthcare Resource Optimization (HERO) Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Sharon BedePatient Partner, Health Economics and healthcare Resource Optimization (HERO) Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Michael HalasPatient Partner, Health Economics and healthcare Resource Optimization (HERO) Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Linda RichesPatient Partner, Health Economics and healthcare Resource Optimization (HERO) Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Deirdre WalshPatient Partner, Health Economics and healthcare Resource Optimization (HERO) Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Justin Presseau *Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, PO Box 201B, 501 Smyth Road, ON, K1H 8L6, Ottawa, Canada.
Kednapa Thavorn *Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, PO Box 201B, 501 Smyth Road, ON, K1H 8L6, Ottawa, Canada. kthavorn@ohri.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient engagement, in which patients and their caregivers work together with research teams, can enhance the relevance, quality, and applicability of health research findings. While patient engagement has been successfully integrated into many areas of health research, its application within health economic evaluations remains limited. This commentary explores interest and strategies for patient engagement in economic evaluation, based on our work with 5 patient partners and 12 research centres affiliated with the Ontario Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research SUPPORT Unit (OSSU). We also piloted a co-production approach to develop practical tools and strategies for meaningful engagement. Both patient partners and OSSU centre representatives emphasized the need for clear guidance, targeted training, and sustained investment to enable scalable and equitable engagement in this complex area of research. Key barriers identified included a lack of plain-language resources, limited institutional capacity for facilitating patient partnerships, and the absence of centralized supports across OSSU research centres. Through a series of virtual meetings between patient partners, we co-created a visual flow diagram and a patient activity matrix to support engagement across key stages of economic evaluation. The engagement process was grounded in shared learning, respect for lived experience, and responsiveness to evolving priorities. Our work supports the growing literature on patient engagement in health economics and offers early evidence that co-developed tools can support inclusive, patient-informed economic evaluations. Our findings lay the groundwork for future efforts to create targeted and practical guidance on when and how to embed patient perspectives throughout the economic evaluation process, thereby contributing to more transparent, collaborative, and equitable health policy decision-making.

Indexed as

Economic evaluationHealth technology assessmentPatient and public involvementPatient engagement

Identifiers

PMID41975509
PMCPMC13072492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.