Reporting of Patient and Public Involvement in Technology Appraisal and Assessment Reports: A Rapid Scoping Review.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2024-11-02 DOI:10.1007/s40271-024-00721-7
Eugenie Evelynne Johnson, Cyril Onwuelazu Uteh, Emma Belilios, Fiona Pearson
{"title":"Reporting of Patient and Public Involvement in Technology Appraisal and Assessment Reports: A Rapid Scoping Review.","authors":"Eugenie Evelynne Johnson, Cyril Onwuelazu Uteh, Emma Belilios, Fiona Pearson","doi":"10.1007/s40271-024-00721-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) produces guidance on the use of health technologies (including new and existing medicines, medical devices, diagnostics and interventional procedures) in the National Health Service. Technology Appraisals inform recommendations on the use of new and existing health technologies. As part of its health technology evaluation process, NICE ask independent research groups known as Evidence or External Assessment Groups (EAGs) to assess or evaluate the available evidence surrounding health technologies. Although patients and the public are involved in the wider NICE Heath Technology Evaluation and Assessment process, little is known about the extent to which patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is undertaken and documented in EAG Reports.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This rapid scoping review aimed to discover the extent to which PPIE is currently undertaken and documented in EAG Reports, which feed into the wider NICE health technology assessment process, and whether EAG Reports contain a plain language summary.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched the NICE website for guidance published between 27 September, 2022 and 27 September, 2023. All records were downloaded directly from the NICE website into an Excel spreadsheet for extraction. Evaluations that were terminated before guidance was published or where an EAG Report was not available as supporting evidence were excluded. One researcher charted information regarding the type of each EAG Report, whether a plain language summary was included, and whether documentation of PPIE was included in the EAG Report either within a stand-alone section or throughout the main text of the report. A second researcher checked charted information for 20% of these records. We tabulated data and described PPIE conduct and documentation in included EAG Reports within a narrative synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 97 EAG Reports were included in this rapid scoping review, the majority of which were documenting Single Technology Appraisals (N = 55). Of the 97 EAG Reports, 11 included a plain language summary. Of these 11 reports, two were Multiple Technology Appraisals, five were Diagnostic Assessment Reviews and four were Early Value Assessments. One Early Value Assessment, one Diagnostic Assessment Review and one Multiple Technology Appraisal reported that they did not conduct PPIE because of time constraints and noted that patients were involved in the wider NICE Appraisal process. Two Early Value Assessments that explicitly reported on PPIE used heterogenous methods of involvement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is currently limited PPIE documented in EAG Reports and inclusion of a plain language summary is uncommon. Further guidance is required to assist EAGs with embedding PPIE and a plain language summary into their Reports taking into consideration the ultra-rapid nature of the production of these reports.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00721-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) produces guidance on the use of health technologies (including new and existing medicines, medical devices, diagnostics and interventional procedures) in the National Health Service. Technology Appraisals inform recommendations on the use of new and existing health technologies. As part of its health technology evaluation process, NICE ask independent research groups known as Evidence or External Assessment Groups (EAGs) to assess or evaluate the available evidence surrounding health technologies. Although patients and the public are involved in the wider NICE Heath Technology Evaluation and Assessment process, little is known about the extent to which patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is undertaken and documented in EAG Reports.

Objectives: This rapid scoping review aimed to discover the extent to which PPIE is currently undertaken and documented in EAG Reports, which feed into the wider NICE health technology assessment process, and whether EAG Reports contain a plain language summary.

Methods: We searched the NICE website for guidance published between 27 September, 2022 and 27 September, 2023. All records were downloaded directly from the NICE website into an Excel spreadsheet for extraction. Evaluations that were terminated before guidance was published or where an EAG Report was not available as supporting evidence were excluded. One researcher charted information regarding the type of each EAG Report, whether a plain language summary was included, and whether documentation of PPIE was included in the EAG Report either within a stand-alone section or throughout the main text of the report. A second researcher checked charted information for 20% of these records. We tabulated data and described PPIE conduct and documentation in included EAG Reports within a narrative synthesis.

Results: A total of 97 EAG Reports were included in this rapid scoping review, the majority of which were documenting Single Technology Appraisals (N = 55). Of the 97 EAG Reports, 11 included a plain language summary. Of these 11 reports, two were Multiple Technology Appraisals, five were Diagnostic Assessment Reviews and four were Early Value Assessments. One Early Value Assessment, one Diagnostic Assessment Review and one Multiple Technology Appraisal reported that they did not conduct PPIE because of time constraints and noted that patients were involved in the wider NICE Appraisal process. Two Early Value Assessments that explicitly reported on PPIE used heterogenous methods of involvement.

Conclusions: There is currently limited PPIE documented in EAG Reports and inclusion of a plain language summary is uncommon. Further guidance is required to assist EAGs with embedding PPIE and a plain language summary into their Reports taking into consideration the ultra-rapid nature of the production of these reports.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
技术鉴定和评估报告中的患者和公众参与报告:快速范围审查》。
背景:美国国家健康与护理优化研究所(NICE)为国家健康服务中健康技术(包括新的和现有的药物、医疗器械、诊断和介入程序)的使用制定指南。技术评估为使用新的和现有的医疗技术提供建议。作为其医疗技术评估程序的一部分,NICE 邀请被称为 "证据或外部评估小组"(EAGs)的独立研究小组来评估或评价与医疗技术相关的现有证据。尽管患者和公众参与了更广泛的 NICE 卫生技术评估和评价过程,但对于患者和公众参与(PPIE)的程度以及 EAG 报告的记录情况却知之甚少:本次快速范围界定审查旨在了解目前在EAG报告中开展和记录PPIE的程度,EAG报告为更广泛的NICE卫生技术评估流程提供了信息,以及EAG报告是否包含通俗易懂的语言摘要:我们在 NICE 网站上搜索了 2022 年 9 月 27 日至 2023 年 9 月 27 日期间发布的指南。所有记录都直接从 NICE 网站下载到 Excel 电子表格中进行提取。排除了在指南发布前就已终止的评估,或没有 EAG 报告作为支持证据的评估。一名研究人员将每份 EAG 报告的类型、是否包含通俗易懂的语言摘要、EAG 报告中是否包含 PPIE 文档等信息制成图表,这些信息可以是独立章节中的信息,也可以是报告正文中的信息。第二名研究人员检查了其中 20% 的图表信息。我们将数据制成表格,并在叙述性综述中描述了EAG报告中的PPIE行为和记录:本次快速范围界定综述共纳入了 97 份 EAG 报告,其中大部分为单项技术评估报告(N = 55)。在这 97 份 EAG 报告中,有 11 份报告包含纯语言摘要。在这 11 份报告中,2 份为多项技术评估,5 份为诊断评估审查,4 份为早期价值评估。一份早期价值评估、一份诊断评估审查和一份多重技术评估报告称,由于时间限制,他们没有进行 PPIE,并指出患者参与了更广泛的 NICE 评估过程。两项明确报告了PPIE的早期价值评估采用了不同的参与方法:结论:目前,EAG 报告中记录的 PPIE 非常有限,而包含通俗语言摘要的情况也不常见。需要进一步的指导,以协助 EAG 将 PPIE 和通俗易懂的语言摘要纳入其报告,同时考虑到这些报告的超快速制作性质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence. The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making. Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances. All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.
期刊最新文献
Reporting of Patient and Public Involvement in Technology Appraisal and Assessment Reports: A Rapid Scoping Review. 15th Meeting of the International Academy of Health Preference Research. Patients' Preferences for Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor Modulators in Multiple Sclerosis Based on Clinical Management Considerations: A Choice Experiment. The Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes to Measure Treatment Satisfaction in Drug Development. Young People's Barriers and Facilitators of Engagement with Web-Based Mental Health Interventions for Anxiety and Depression: A Qualitative Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1