Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38439624›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2024

HTA community perspectives on the use of patient preference information: lessons learned from a survey with members of HTA bodies.

Mickael Hiligsmann, Barry Liden, Charlotte Beaudart, Evi Germeni, Alissa Hanna, Maya Joshi, Catherine P Koola, Barry Stein, Mandy Tonkinson, Deborah Marshall and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Two decades of impact: lessons from the HTAi Patient and Citizen Involvement in HTA Interest Group.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

11 authors.

Mickael HiligsmannDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4274-9258
Barry LidenPublic Policy, USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9228-8037
Charlotte BeaudartNARILIS (NAmur Research Institute for LIfe Sciences), University of Namur, Namur, Belgium.
Evi GermeniHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5576-8816
Alissa HannaPatient Engagement, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7246-2843
Maya JoshiCommunity and Patient Preference Research (CaPPRe), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Catherine P KoolaInstitute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), Boston, MA, USA.
Barry SteinColorectal Cancer Canada (CCC), Montreal, QC, Canada.
Mandy TonkinsonPublic Involvement Programme, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Manchester, UK.
Deborah MarshallDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Simon FiferCommunity and Patient Preference Research (CaPPRe), Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This research sought to assess whether and how patient preference (PP) data are currently used within health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and affiliated organizations involved in technology/drug appraisals and assessments. An exploratory survey was developed by the PP Project Subcommittee of the HTA International Patient and Citizen Involvement Interest Group to gain insight into the use, impact, and role of PP data in HTA, as well as the perceived barriers to its incorporation. Forty members of HTA bodies and affiliated organizations from twelve countries completed the online survey. PP data were reported to be formally considered as part of the HTA evidence review process by 82.5 percent of the respondents, while 39.4 percent reported that most of the appraisals and assessments within their organization in the past year had submitted PP data. The leading reason for why PP data were not submitted in most assessments was time/resource constraints followed by lack of clarity on PP data impact. Participants reported that PP data had a moderate level of influence on the deliberative process and outcome of the decision, but a higher level of influence on the decision's quality. Most (81.8 percent) felt patient advocacy groups should be primarily responsible for generating and submitting this type of evidence. Insights from the survey confirm the use of PP data in HTA but reveal barriers to its broader and more meaningful integration. Encouragingly, participants believe obstacles can be overcome, paving the way for a second phase of research involving in-depth collaborative workshops with HTA representatives.

Indexed as

Decision MakingTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansPatient PreferenceSurveys and Questionnairesassessmentdecision-makinghealth technologyHTApatient involvementpatient outcomespatient preferences

Identifiers

PMID38439624
PMCPMC11569952

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.