Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41024701›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025

Engaging stakeholders along health technology assessment pathways: a scoping review of international practice.

Drew Carter, Mah Laka, Yuan Gao, Olivia Choi, David Tamblyn, Tracy Merlin

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Drew CarterAdelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA), School of Public Health, https://ror.org/00892tw58The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1221-6656
Mah LakaAdelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA), School of Public Health, https://ror.org/00892tw58The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3228-5031
Yuan GaoAdelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA), School of Public Health, https://ror.org/00892tw58The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6647-2156
Olivia ChoiAdelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA), School of Public Health, https://ror.org/00892tw58The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
David TamblynAdelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA), School of Public Health, https://ror.org/00892tw58The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6382-3886
Tracy MerlinAdelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA), School of Public Health, https://ror.org/00892tw58The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7293-4262

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHealth technology assessment (HTA) has been characterized as a complex adaptive system that centrally features stakeholder interactions. This article provides an overview of current practices in HTA stakeholder engagement concerning medicines.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review of English-language sources published between 2018 and 2023, including 66 peer-reviewed articles and 264 gray literature sources describing stakeholder involvement in HTA processes relating to medicines.

resultsIndustry is commonly permitted to provide a submission for funding, though the modes and time points of industry engagement are many. Clinician and patient engagement are regarded as especially important with increased intervention complexity and innovation. Stakeholder engagement is perhaps mostly conducted to enhance the collation and interpretation of evidence, not necessarily to increase the legitimacy of the HTA process or give stakeholders influence over a decision that affects them. Patients are mostly engaged through broader public consultation. Sometimes they work directly with other stakeholders. Problems with patient engagement include challenges with recruitment, time, and resource constraints. Stakeholder groups can also differ in how they view and prioritize public and patient engagement. Public engagement is often limited to a matter of transparency and public accountability, but the reasons to undertake public engagement are numerous and varied. They include gaining input on affordability or prioritization issues.

conclusionsHTA decision-making committees should commit to publicly communicating how they considered and made use of various stakeholder inputs. This could build trust and confidence in the committees and guide the public and patients on the information that committees find helpful.

Indexed as

InternationalityStakeholder ParticipationTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalDecision MakingHumansPatient Participationbiomedicalevidence-based medicinepatient participationsocial responsibilitystakeholder participationtechnology assessment

Identifiers

PMID41024701
PMCPMC12516622

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.