Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: the development of priority-setting criteria for patients' and consumers' interests
- PMID: 22004776
- DOI: 10.1017/S0266462311000547
Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: the development of priority-setting criteria for patients' and consumers' interests
Abstract
Background: The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) was established in 2003 by the German parliament. Its legislative responsibilities are health technology assessment, mostly to support policy making and reimbursement decisions. It also has a mandate to serve patients' interests directly, by assessing and communicating evidence for the general public.
Objectives: To develop a priority-setting framework based on the interests of patients and the general public.
Methods: A theoretical framework for priority setting from a patient/consumer perspective was developed. The process of development began with a poll to determine level of lay and health professional interest in the conclusions of 124 systematic reviews (194 responses). Data sources to identify patients' and consumers' information needs and interests were identified.
Results: IQWiG's theoretical framework encompasses criteria for quality of evidence and interest, as well as being explicit about editorial considerations, including potential for harm. Dimensions of "patient interest" were identified, such as patients' concerns, information seeking, and use. Rather than being a single item capable of measurement by one means, the concept of "patients' interests" requires consideration of data and opinions from various sources.
Conclusions: The best evidence to communicate to patients/consumers is right, relevant and likely to be considered interesting and/or important to the people affected. What is likely to be interesting for the community generally is sufficient evidence for a concrete conclusion, in a common condition. More research is needed on characteristics of information that interest patients and consumers, methods of evaluating the effectiveness of priority setting, and methods to determine priorities for disinvestment.
Similar articles
-
Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders.Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Apr 29;17(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0444-z. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019. PMID: 31036016 Free PMC article.
-
Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.Eur J Health Econ. 2008 Nov;9 Suppl 1:5-29. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0122-5. Eur J Health Econ. 2008. PMID: 18987905
-
[Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008 Dec;133 Suppl 7:S225-46. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1100954. Epub 2008 Nov 25. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008. PMID: 19034813 German.
-
Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach.Health Technol Assess. 2004 Apr;8(15):1-148, III-IV. doi: 10.3310/hta8150. Health Technol Assess. 2004. PMID: 15080866 Review.
-
Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 14;3(3):CD013274. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013274.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023. PMID: 36917094 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Incremental levels of diagnostic information incentivize health-seeking in non-alcoholic fatty liver: a randomized clinical trial.Sci Rep. 2022 May 18;12(1):8272. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-12295-1. Sci Rep. 2022. PMID: 35585153 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Systematic review for the development of a pharmaceutical and medical products prioritization framework.J Pharm Policy Pract. 2019 Aug 21;12:21. doi: 10.1186/s40545-019-0181-2. eCollection 2019. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2019. PMID: 31452901 Free PMC article.
-
Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report.Syst Rev. 2019 May 30;8(1):129. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1035-3. Syst Rev. 2019. PMID: 31146776 Free PMC article.
-
Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders.Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Apr 29;17(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0444-z. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019. PMID: 31036016 Free PMC article.
-
A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on Cochrane.Res Involv Engagem. 2016 Dec 21;2:36. doi: 10.1186/s40900-016-0049-4. eCollection 2016. Res Involv Engagem. 2016. PMID: 29507770 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
