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
. 2022 Jun 3;38(1):e37.
doi: 10.1017/S0266462322000198.

Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force

Affiliations

Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force

Wija Oortwijn et al. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. .

Abstract

Objectives: Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap.

Methods: The joint Task Force consisted of fifteen members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to two rounds of peer review.

Results: A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation.

Conclusions: The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by six phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

Keywords: Deliberative processes; Guidance; Health technology assessment; Participation; Stakeholders.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest. The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Kolotourou K, Ermacora P, Grosvenor A. The evolution of European HTA and access to innovative medicines. J Comp Eff Res. 2019;8:275–278. - PubMed
    1. Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, et al. Deliberations about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:239–251. - PubMed
    1. Lomas J, Culyer AJ, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Tetroe J. Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance Final report. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; Ottawa, ON: 2005. [cited 9 July 2021]. Available at: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/51073554/conceptualizing-and-comb....
    1. Dobrow MJ, Chafe R, Burchett HED, Culyer AJ. Designing deliberative methods for combining heterogeneous evidence: A systematic review and qualitative scan Research conducted: 2009. Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement; Ottawa, ON: 2012.
    1. Bond K, Stiffell R, Ollendorf D. Principles for deliberative processes in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:445–452. - PubMed

MeSH terms