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
Review
. 2025 Nov 10.
doi: 10.1007/s40273-025-01550-8. Online ahead of print.

Improving Collaborative Engagement in Health State Valuation: A Scoping Review of Current Practices and Emerging Recommendations

Philip A Powell  1 , Victoria Gale  2 , Gurdas Singh  3 , Anthea Sutton  2 , Janine Verstraete  4 , Nancy Devlin  5 , Michael Herdman  6 , Simone Schieskow  7 , Jill Carlton  2
Affiliations
Review

Improving Collaborative Engagement in Health State Valuation: A Scoping Review of Current Practices and Emerging Recommendations

Philip A Powell et al. Pharmacoeconomics. .

Abstract

Background and objective: Collaborative engagement with individuals invested in or affected by health research, beyond researchers themselves, is advantageous and encouraged by major funding bodies. However, the degree of collaborative engagement in health state valuation is unclear. A scoping review was conducted to (i) identify recommendations on best practice in collaborative engagement in health economics and related literature; (ii) identify examples of collaborative engagement in valuation studies; and (iii) map (ii) onto (i) to identify current practice and future recommendations.

Methods: Eight databases were searched in March-May 2024, with grey literature searches in August-September 2024. For objective (i), reports or manuscripts in health economics or patient-reported outcome measure development/evaluation of any date providing recommendations for collaborative engagement were included. For objective (ii), articles published since 2019 featuring health state valuation and collaborative engagement were included. Best practice recommendations were extracted and thematically synthesised. Examples of collaborative engagement were extracted and mapped against recommendations.

Results: Twenty-two records featuring recommendations and 15 valuation studies were included. A 15-item framework of emerging best practice recommendations for collaborative engagement was synthesised. Most examples of collaborative engagement involved patients and/or experts helping inform health states for valuation. There was no evidence for 9 out of 15 synthesised recommendations having been applied in any of the valuation studies and only minimal evidence was extracted for the remaining six.

Conclusions: Collaborative engagement in health state valuation is underdeveloped and unaligned with literature recommendations. A 15-point framework has been developed as a strategic starting point for developing guidance to improve practice in the field.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflicts of interest/competing interests: Nancy Devlin, Michael Herdman, Simone Schieskow and Janine Verstraete are members of the EuroQol Group. The funder influenced our decision to search for any additional evidence specifically relevant to the EuroQol Research Foundation as part of our search strategy, but none was found. The funder at large had no further role in the review process. Philip A. Powell, Victoria Gale, Gurdas Singh, Anthea Sutton and Jill Carlton have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article. Ethics approval: Not applicable. Consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Availability of data and material: Not applicable. Code availability: Not applicable. Authors’ contributions: Concept and design: JC, ND, MH, SS, JV. Acquisition of data: VG, GS, AS. Analysis and interpretation of data: JC, PAP. Drafting of the manuscript: JC, PAP, AS. Critical revision of the paper for important intellectual content: JC, ND, VG, MH, PAP, SS, AS, JV. Obtaining funding: JC, ND, MH, SS, AS, JV. All authors certify that they meet the ICMJE criteria for authorship. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

References

    1. Boaz A, Hanney S, Borst R, O’Shea A, Kok M. How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):60. - PubMed - PMC - DOI
    1. Kim KK, Khodyakov D, Marie K, et al. A novel stakeholder engagement approach for patient-centered outcomes research. Med Care. 2018;56(10 Suppl. 1):S41–7. - PubMed - PMC - DOI
    1. Deverka PA, Lavallee DC, Desai PJ, et al. Stakeholder participation in comparative effectiveness research: defining a framework for effective engagement. J Comp Eff Res. 2012;1(2):181–94. - PubMed - DOI
    1. National Institute for Health Research. Patient and public involvement in health and social care research: a handbook for researchers. London: NIHR Research Design Service; 2014.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preferred terms for select population groups and communities. Updated December 10, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/health-communication/php/toolkit/preferred-terms.html . Accessed 20 Mar 2024.

LinkOut - more resources