OP244 Tools And Experiences To Facilitate Effective Patient Participation In Health Technology Assessment
IntroductionIn 2017, a Patient Involvement Interest Group (PIIG) was created in the Spanish Network for Health Technology Assessment of the National Health System (RedETS) to facilitate and promote Patient Involvement (PI) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The PIIG proposed a decisional flowcha...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of technology assessment in health care 2021-12, Vol.37 (S1), p.9-9 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 9 |
---|---|
container_issue | S1 |
container_start_page | 9 |
container_title | International journal of technology assessment in health care |
container_volume | 37 |
creator | Toledo-chávarri, Ana Remón, Lucia Prieto Ibargoyen, Nora Linde, Máximo Molina Pego, Yolanda Triñanes Reviriego, Eva Iglesias, Asun Gutierrez García, Vanesa Ramos López-Argumedo, Marta Álvarez-Pérez, Yolanda |
description | IntroductionIn 2017, a Patient Involvement Interest Group (PIIG) was created in the Spanish Network for Health Technology Assessment of the National Health System (RedETS) to facilitate and promote Patient Involvement (PI) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The PIIG proposed a decisional flowchart to guide researchers’ in decisions regarding PI methods in HTA. The flowchart proposed a combination of direct involvement and incorporation of patient-based evidence depending on the scope and the aims of the assessment.This work aims to present the flowchart and the results of the evaluation of the latest experiences in PI in HTA in RedETS (2018–2020), including direct-involvement and patient-based evidence.MethodsA survey was sent to the HTA researchers who implemented PI initiatives in RedETS assessments. The survey asked to describe their experiences, lessons learned, challenges and added value regarding the use of direct-involvement, systematic reviews (SR) and primary studies. A descriptive analysis was performed and the results were discussed in an online PIIG workshop.ResultsThirty-two assessments included direct PI, twenty-one SR synthesized qualitative and quantitative studies about patient experiences, values and preferences and eight included primary studies, mainly of qualitative design. Recruitment and the lack of methodological resources were the main barriers both for direct PI and primary studies. Relevance of the included studies was the main barrier for SR. Added value was found in all PI methods. Direct-involvement had an impact on the project plan and PICO definition, outcomes relevance, information about the health condition and treatments. SR contributed with relevant patient-based evidence, deeper assessment of patient experiences, values and preferences and implementation factors. Primary studies developed new or contextualized knowledge directly applicable to decision-making.ConclusionsThe PI flowchart has served to facilitate the incorporation of patient input in HTA reports. The different approaches implemented have allowed to provide relevant and well-grounded data in each report to inform decision-making in patient-centered healthcare provision, but it is necessary that specific training and resources are provided to enable adequate and timely implementation. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0266462321000854 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2605439545</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0266462321000854</cupid><sourcerecordid>2605439545</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1574-9c0d1d41c6779d592a208ca9774135f92e710cfdbdb68222392ebfdc9ab1dc4f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UMtKAzEUDaJgrX6Au4Dr0bxm0ixLaW2h0IJ1PWTyaFOmkzFJxf69KRVciKvDPa8LB4BHjJ4xwvzlDZGqYhWhBCOERiW7AgPMOC4qykbXYHCWi7N-C-5i3COEKRJoANxqTRiDG-_bCMedhtOv3gRnOmViZuFMKte6JJOBU2uNSu7TwLVM2ZEyhuSU6_PpO7jo4NzINu3gxqhd51u_PcFxjCbGQ3bfgxsr22gefnAI3mfTzWReLFevi8l4WShcclYIhTTWDKuKc6FLQSRBIyUF5wzT0gpiOEbK6kY31YgQQjPTWK2EbLBWzNIheLr09sF_HE1M9d4fQ5df1qRCJaOiZGV24YtLBR9jMLbugzvIcKoxqs-L1n8WzRn6k5GHJji9Nb_V_6e-AQZDd4M</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2605439545</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>OP244 Tools And Experiences To Facilitate Effective Patient Participation In Health Technology Assessment</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Toledo-chávarri, Ana ; Remón, Lucia Prieto ; Ibargoyen, Nora ; Linde, Máximo Molina ; Pego, Yolanda Triñanes ; Reviriego, Eva ; Iglesias, Asun Gutierrez ; García, Vanesa Ramos ; López-Argumedo, Marta ; Álvarez-Pérez, Yolanda</creator><creatorcontrib>Toledo-chávarri, Ana ; Remón, Lucia Prieto ; Ibargoyen, Nora ; Linde, Máximo Molina ; Pego, Yolanda Triñanes ; Reviriego, Eva ; Iglesias, Asun Gutierrez ; García, Vanesa Ramos ; López-Argumedo, Marta ; Álvarez-Pérez, Yolanda</creatorcontrib><description>IntroductionIn 2017, a Patient Involvement Interest Group (PIIG) was created in the Spanish Network for Health Technology Assessment of the National Health System (RedETS) to facilitate and promote Patient Involvement (PI) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The PIIG proposed a decisional flowchart to guide researchers’ in decisions regarding PI methods in HTA. The flowchart proposed a combination of direct involvement and incorporation of patient-based evidence depending on the scope and the aims of the assessment.This work aims to present the flowchart and the results of the evaluation of the latest experiences in PI in HTA in RedETS (2018–2020), including direct-involvement and patient-based evidence.MethodsA survey was sent to the HTA researchers who implemented PI initiatives in RedETS assessments. The survey asked to describe their experiences, lessons learned, challenges and added value regarding the use of direct-involvement, systematic reviews (SR) and primary studies. A descriptive analysis was performed and the results were discussed in an online PIIG workshop.ResultsThirty-two assessments included direct PI, twenty-one SR synthesized qualitative and quantitative studies about patient experiences, values and preferences and eight included primary studies, mainly of qualitative design. Recruitment and the lack of methodological resources were the main barriers both for direct PI and primary studies. Relevance of the included studies was the main barrier for SR. Added value was found in all PI methods. Direct-involvement had an impact on the project plan and PICO definition, outcomes relevance, information about the health condition and treatments. SR contributed with relevant patient-based evidence, deeper assessment of patient experiences, values and preferences and implementation factors. Primary studies developed new or contextualized knowledge directly applicable to decision-making.ConclusionsThe PI flowchart has served to facilitate the incorporation of patient input in HTA reports. The different approaches implemented have allowed to provide relevant and well-grounded data in each report to inform decision-making in patient-centered healthcare provision, but it is necessary that specific training and resources are provided to enable adequate and timely implementation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-4623</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-6348</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0266462321000854</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Decision making ; Flow charts ; Health care ; Health technology assessment ; Literature reviews ; Oral Presentations ; Patients ; Polls & surveys ; Technology assessment</subject><ispartof>International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2021-12, Vol.37 (S1), p.9-9</ispartof><rights>Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266462321000854/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,27924,27925,55628</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Toledo-chávarri, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Remón, Lucia Prieto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ibargoyen, Nora</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Linde, Máximo Molina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pego, Yolanda Triñanes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reviriego, Eva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iglesias, Asun Gutierrez</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García, Vanesa Ramos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>López-Argumedo, Marta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Álvarez-Pérez, Yolanda</creatorcontrib><title>OP244 Tools And Experiences To Facilitate Effective Patient Participation In Health Technology Assessment</title><title>International journal of technology assessment in health care</title><addtitle>Int J Technol Assess Health Care</addtitle><description>IntroductionIn 2017, a Patient Involvement Interest Group (PIIG) was created in the Spanish Network for Health Technology Assessment of the National Health System (RedETS) to facilitate and promote Patient Involvement (PI) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The PIIG proposed a decisional flowchart to guide researchers’ in decisions regarding PI methods in HTA. The flowchart proposed a combination of direct involvement and incorporation of patient-based evidence depending on the scope and the aims of the assessment.This work aims to present the flowchart and the results of the evaluation of the latest experiences in PI in HTA in RedETS (2018–2020), including direct-involvement and patient-based evidence.MethodsA survey was sent to the HTA researchers who implemented PI initiatives in RedETS assessments. The survey asked to describe their experiences, lessons learned, challenges and added value regarding the use of direct-involvement, systematic reviews (SR) and primary studies. A descriptive analysis was performed and the results were discussed in an online PIIG workshop.ResultsThirty-two assessments included direct PI, twenty-one SR synthesized qualitative and quantitative studies about patient experiences, values and preferences and eight included primary studies, mainly of qualitative design. Recruitment and the lack of methodological resources were the main barriers both for direct PI and primary studies. Relevance of the included studies was the main barrier for SR. Added value was found in all PI methods. Direct-involvement had an impact on the project plan and PICO definition, outcomes relevance, information about the health condition and treatments. SR contributed with relevant patient-based evidence, deeper assessment of patient experiences, values and preferences and implementation factors. Primary studies developed new or contextualized knowledge directly applicable to decision-making.ConclusionsThe PI flowchart has served to facilitate the incorporation of patient input in HTA reports. The different approaches implemented have allowed to provide relevant and well-grounded data in each report to inform decision-making in patient-centered healthcare provision, but it is necessary that specific training and resources are provided to enable adequate and timely implementation.</description><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Flow charts</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health technology assessment</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Oral Presentations</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Technology assessment</subject><issn>0266-4623</issn><issn>1471-6348</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UMtKAzEUDaJgrX6Au4Dr0bxm0ixLaW2h0IJ1PWTyaFOmkzFJxf69KRVciKvDPa8LB4BHjJ4xwvzlDZGqYhWhBCOERiW7AgPMOC4qykbXYHCWi7N-C-5i3COEKRJoANxqTRiDG-_bCMedhtOv3gRnOmViZuFMKte6JJOBU2uNSu7TwLVM2ZEyhuSU6_PpO7jo4NzINu3gxqhd51u_PcFxjCbGQ3bfgxsr22gefnAI3mfTzWReLFevi8l4WShcclYIhTTWDKuKc6FLQSRBIyUF5wzT0gpiOEbK6kY31YgQQjPTWK2EbLBWzNIheLr09sF_HE1M9d4fQ5df1qRCJaOiZGV24YtLBR9jMLbugzvIcKoxqs-L1n8WzRn6k5GHJji9Nb_V_6e-AQZDd4M</recordid><startdate>202112</startdate><enddate>202112</enddate><creator>Toledo-chávarri, Ana</creator><creator>Remón, Lucia Prieto</creator><creator>Ibargoyen, Nora</creator><creator>Linde, Máximo Molina</creator><creator>Pego, Yolanda Triñanes</creator><creator>Reviriego, Eva</creator><creator>Iglesias, Asun Gutierrez</creator><creator>García, Vanesa Ramos</creator><creator>López-Argumedo, Marta</creator><creator>Álvarez-Pérez, Yolanda</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202112</creationdate><title>OP244 Tools And Experiences To Facilitate Effective Patient Participation In Health Technology Assessment</title><author>Toledo-chávarri, Ana ; Remón, Lucia Prieto ; Ibargoyen, Nora ; Linde, Máximo Molina ; Pego, Yolanda Triñanes ; Reviriego, Eva ; Iglesias, Asun Gutierrez ; García, Vanesa Ramos ; López-Argumedo, Marta ; Álvarez-Pérez, Yolanda</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1574-9c0d1d41c6779d592a208ca9774135f92e710cfdbdb68222392ebfdc9ab1dc4f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Flow charts</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health technology assessment</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Oral Presentations</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Technology assessment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Toledo-chávarri, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Remón, Lucia Prieto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ibargoyen, Nora</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Linde, Máximo Molina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pego, Yolanda Triñanes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reviriego, Eva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iglesias, Asun Gutierrez</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>García, Vanesa Ramos</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>López-Argumedo, Marta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Álvarez-Pérez, Yolanda</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Toledo-chávarri, Ana</au><au>Remón, Lucia Prieto</au><au>Ibargoyen, Nora</au><au>Linde, Máximo Molina</au><au>Pego, Yolanda Triñanes</au><au>Reviriego, Eva</au><au>Iglesias, Asun Gutierrez</au><au>García, Vanesa Ramos</au><au>López-Argumedo, Marta</au><au>Álvarez-Pérez, Yolanda</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>OP244 Tools And Experiences To Facilitate Effective Patient Participation In Health Technology Assessment</atitle><jtitle>International journal of technology assessment in health care</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Technol Assess Health Care</addtitle><date>2021-12</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>S1</issue><spage>9</spage><epage>9</epage><pages>9-9</pages><issn>0266-4623</issn><eissn>1471-6348</eissn><abstract>IntroductionIn 2017, a Patient Involvement Interest Group (PIIG) was created in the Spanish Network for Health Technology Assessment of the National Health System (RedETS) to facilitate and promote Patient Involvement (PI) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). The PIIG proposed a decisional flowchart to guide researchers’ in decisions regarding PI methods in HTA. The flowchart proposed a combination of direct involvement and incorporation of patient-based evidence depending on the scope and the aims of the assessment.This work aims to present the flowchart and the results of the evaluation of the latest experiences in PI in HTA in RedETS (2018–2020), including direct-involvement and patient-based evidence.MethodsA survey was sent to the HTA researchers who implemented PI initiatives in RedETS assessments. The survey asked to describe their experiences, lessons learned, challenges and added value regarding the use of direct-involvement, systematic reviews (SR) and primary studies. A descriptive analysis was performed and the results were discussed in an online PIIG workshop.ResultsThirty-two assessments included direct PI, twenty-one SR synthesized qualitative and quantitative studies about patient experiences, values and preferences and eight included primary studies, mainly of qualitative design. Recruitment and the lack of methodological resources were the main barriers both for direct PI and primary studies. Relevance of the included studies was the main barrier for SR. Added value was found in all PI methods. Direct-involvement had an impact on the project plan and PICO definition, outcomes relevance, information about the health condition and treatments. SR contributed with relevant patient-based evidence, deeper assessment of patient experiences, values and preferences and implementation factors. Primary studies developed new or contextualized knowledge directly applicable to decision-making.ConclusionsThe PI flowchart has served to facilitate the incorporation of patient input in HTA reports. The different approaches implemented have allowed to provide relevant and well-grounded data in each report to inform decision-making in patient-centered healthcare provision, but it is necessary that specific training and resources are provided to enable adequate and timely implementation.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0266462321000854</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0266-4623 |
ispartof | International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2021-12, Vol.37 (S1), p.9-9 |
issn | 0266-4623 1471-6348 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2605439545 |
source | Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Decision making Flow charts Health care Health technology assessment Literature reviews Oral Presentations Patients Polls & surveys Technology assessment |
title | OP244 Tools And Experiences To Facilitate Effective Patient Participation In Health Technology Assessment |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T13%3A06%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=OP244%20Tools%20And%20Experiences%20To%20Facilitate%20Effective%20Patient%20Participation%20In%20Health%20Technology%20Assessment&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20technology%20assessment%20in%20health%20care&rft.au=Toledo-ch%C3%A1varri,%20Ana&rft.date=2021-12&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=S1&rft.spage=9&rft.epage=9&rft.pages=9-9&rft.issn=0266-4623&rft.eissn=1471-6348&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0266462321000854&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2605439545%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2605439545&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0266462321000854&rfr_iscdi=true |