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
. 2023:12:7458.
doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7458. Epub 2022 Aug 16.

Challenges and Opportunities for Deliberative Processes for Healthcare Decision-Making Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

Affiliations
Comment

Challenges and Opportunities for Deliberative Processes for Healthcare Decision-Making Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide"

Kenneth Bond. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023.

Abstract

The second edition of the practical guide for evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) is an important addition to the growing guidance on deliberative processes supporting priority setting in healthcare. While the practical guide draws on an extensive amount of information collected on established and developing processes within a range of countries, EDPs present health technology assessment (HTA) bodies with several challenges. (1) Basing recommendations on current processes that have not been well-evaluated and that have changed over time may lead to weaker legitimacy than desired. (2) The requirement for social learning among stakeholders may require increased resourcing and blur the boundary between moral deliberation and political negotiation. (3) Robust evaluation should be based on an explicit theory of change, and some process outcomes may be poor guides to overall improvement of EDPs. This comment clarifies and reinforces the recommendations provided in the practical guide.

Keywords: Deliberation; Deliberative Processes; Health Technology Assessment; Legitimacy; Priority Setting; Stakeholder Involvement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Author declares that he has no competing interests.

Comment on

References

    1. Oortwijn W, Husereau D, Abelson J, et al. Designing and implementing deliberative processes for health technology assessment: a good practices report of a joint HTAi/ISPOR task force. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2022;38(1):e37. doi: 10.1017/s0266462322000198. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bond K, Stiffell R, Ollendorf DA. Principles for deliberative processes in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020:1-8. 10.1017/s0266462320000550. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for health benefit package design - part II: a practical guide. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(10):2327–2336. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.159. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baltussen R, Jansen M, Oortwijn W. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for legitimate health benefit package design - part I: conceptual framework. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021. 10.34172/ijhpm.2021.158. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes. A practical guide for HTA bodies for legitimate benefit package design. Version 2.0. Nijmegen: Radboud University Medical Center; 2021. https://www.radboudumc.nl/getmedia/17a96fdb-553b-4e68-81ab-4d8d9a7f9ff1/.... Accessed June 11, 2022.

LinkOut - more resources