Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comment
. 2021 Mar 14;10(4):232-236.
doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.145.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for HTA Around the Globe: Exploring the Next Frontiers of HTA and Best Practices Comment on "Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe"

Unni Gopinathan  1 , Trygve Ottersen  1 , Pascale-Renée Cyr  2 , Kalipso Chalkidou  3   4
Affiliations
Comment

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for HTA Around the Globe: Exploring the Next Frontiers of HTA and Best Practices Comment on "Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe"

Unni Gopinathan et al. Int J Health Policy Manag. .

Abstract

This comment reflects on an article by Oortwijn, Jansen, and Baltussen about the use and features of 'evidence-informed deliberative processes' (EDPs) among health technology assessment (HTA) agencies around the world and the need for more guidance. First, we highlight procedural aspects that are relevant across key steps of EDP, focusing on conflict of interest, the different roles of stakeholders throughout a HTA and public justification of decisions. Second, we discuss new knowledge and models needed to maximize the value of deliberative processes at the expanding frontiers of HTA, paying special attention to when HTA is applied in primary care, employed for public health interventions, and is produced through international collaboration.

Keywords: Decision-Making; Deliberative Processes; Health Policy; Health Technology Assessment; Priority Setting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment on

References

    1. World Health Organization (WHO). Making Fair Choices on the Path to Universal Health Coverage: Final report of the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage. WHO; 2014.
    1. Norheim OF. Ethical priority setting for universal health coverage: challenges in deciding upon fair distribution of health services. BMC Med. 2016;14:75. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0624-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting Limits Fairly: Learning to Share Resources for Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
    1. Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000;321(7272):1300–1301. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7272.1300. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Culyer AJ. NICE’s use of cost effectiveness as an exemplar of a deliberative process. Health Econ Policy Law. 2006;1(Pt 3):299–318. doi: 10.1017/s1744133106004026. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources