|Titre :||Patient advocacy group involvement in health technology assessments: an observational study|
|Auteurs :||Anne Single, Aut. ; Ariana Cabrera, Aut. ; Simon Fifer, Aut. ; Jane Tsai, Aut. ; Jin-Young Paik, Aut. ; Philip Hope, Aut.|
|Dans :||RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT (7(83), 2021)|
SANTEPSYCANCER ; DROIT DU PATIENT ; ENGAGEMENT ; PARTENARIAT ; PATIENT ; REMBOURSEMENT DES SOINS ; TECHNOLOGIE
In some jurisdictions, patients and patient groups may be invited to provide input when Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is used to inform decisions about which medicines should be subsidised or funded. This input can help frame the evidence from a patient perspective, address uncertainties in the evidence and interpret it for the local setting. However, there is currently no evidence linking patient involvement with positive reimbursement decisions.
Aim : We aimed to understand the expectations of patient involvement in the reimbursement process, especially among cancer patient advocacy groups (PAGs) in New Zealand (Aotearoa), South Korea and Taiwan.
Methods : We developed an online survey to help understand the role that cancer PAGs play in reimbursement processes and identify knowledge gaps about the processes that might impact the efforts of PAGs. The survey elicited the views of staff and patients affiliated with PAGs (n = 43) on current practices and how the assessment and reimbursement of new cancer drugs might be improved.
Results : There was variability in knowledge of the HTA assessment processes and in experience of being involved in them. Those with HTA experience were more likely to have confidence in the process. Those who had not been involved tended to have little awareness of, or frustration with, decision-making processes. Most identified cost, finances and economic assessments as key considerations in current processes. Some respondents had clear ideas about how their knowledge and involvement could improve processes to determine the value of new medicines. However, for many, a lack of information about the basis for decision making and opportunities to be involved was a barrier to identifying process improvement.
Conclusions : HTA is implemented primarily in countries seeking to have fair and equitable processes for funding medicines. PAGs often recognise the financial challenges of funding new medicines and share the desire for procedural fairness. The connection PAGs make between patient involvement and improved access to new medicines may be based on the belief they can add information to the evidence base, help solve problems, ensure fairness through transparency and/or influence the culture towards increased access to medicines they value. [Résumé des auteurs]
|Notes de contenus :||18 réf. bibliogr.|
|En ligne :||https://researchinvolvement.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40900-021-00327-5#citeas|