Co‐construction of health technology assessment recommendations with patients: An example with cardiac defibrillator replacement. (5th November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pomey, Marie‐Pascale; Brouillard, Philippe; Ganache, Isabelle; Lambert, Laurie; Boothroyd, Lucy; Collette, Caroline; Bédard, Sylvain; Grégoire, Alexandre; Pelaez, Sandra; Demers‐Payette, Olivier; Goetghebeur, Mireille; de Guise, Michèle; Roy, Denis
• Is Part Of: Health expectations. Volume 23:Number 1(2020)
• Page Start: 182
• Page End: 192
• Publication Date: 2019-11-05
• Subjects: co‐construction -- HTA -- ICD -- INESSS -- patient engagement -- patient involvement -- recommendations; Medical policy -- Periodicals; Public health -- Periodicals; Health planning -- Periodicals; 362.105
• DOI: 10.1111/hex.12989
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1369-6513

Abstract

Abstract: Context: The National Institute of Excellence in Health and Social Services (INESSS), which functions as the Québec health technology assessment (HTA) agency, tested a new way to engage patients along with health‐care professionals in the co‐construction of recommendations regarding implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator replacement. Objective: The objective of this article was to describe the process of co‐construction of recommendations and to propose methods of building best practices for patient involvement (PI) in HTA. Design: Throughout the process, documents were collected and participant observations were made. Individual interviews were conducted with patients, health‐care professionals and the INESSS scientific team, from January to March 2018. Results: Three committees were established: an expert patient committee to reflect on patient experience literature; an expert health professional committee to reflect on medical literature; and a co‐construction committee through which both patients and health‐care professionals contributed to develop the recommendations. The expert patients validated and contextualized a literature review produced by the scientific team. This allowed the scientists to consider aspects related to the patient experience and to integrate the feedback from patients into HTA recommendations. The most important factor contributing to a positive PI experience was the structured methodology for selecting patient participants, and a key factor that inhibited the process was a lack of training in PI on the part of the scientific team. Conclusions: This experience demonstrates that it is possible to co‐construct recommendations, even for technically complex HTA subjects, through a more democratic process than usual which led to more patient‐focused guidance.