Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T13:50:13.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Health technology assessment use and dissemination by patient and consumer groups: Why and how?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Julie Fattal  and
Pascale Lehoux
Julie Fattal
Affiliation:
University of Montreal
Pascale Lehoux
Affiliation:
University of Montreal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Although increasing effort is being devoted to developing strategies to increase knowledge transfer and the uptake of health technology assessment (HTA) by various stakeholders, very little is known about the utilization and dissemination of HTA findings by patient and consumer organizations. The goal of this study is to understand how and why patient and consumer organizations use HTA findings within their organizations, and what factors influence how and when they communicate their findings to members or other organizations.

Methods: We examined the use and dissemination of four controversial HTA reports by sixteen patient and consumer organizations in Ontario and Quebec. We gathered data from semistructured interviews conducted between December 2006 and April 2007.

Results: Although HTA findings are often used by the patient and consumer organizations, key differences were observed in exactly how the four HTA reports were used. Three types of use (instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic) are reported and illustrated. We highlight the importance of the organization's mission and knowledge base in explaining the types of use observed.

Conclusions: We contend that the use and dissemination of HTA reports by specific groups could help in widening the debate around controversial health technologies. The implications and opportunities for HTA agencies relate to the following: (i) identification of “lay” organizations that could help in disseminating results; (ii) acknowledgement of a “lay” audience for HTA findings; (iii) strategic inclusion of advocacy groups during the assessment process for highly controversial technologies; and (iv) contribution of these organizations to the push efforts of knowledge transfer.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentConsumer participationPatient participationInnovation diffusionInformation dissemination
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 473 - 480
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Abelson, J, Eyles, J, McLeod, CB, et al. Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy. 2003;66:95–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. AETMIS. The use of electroconvulsive therapy in Québec. Report prepared by Reiner Banken. Montreal: Agence d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'interventions en santé; 2002:xvii–96.Google Scholar
3. AETMIS. First-trimester prenatal screening for Down syndrome and other aneuploidies. Report prepared by Alicia Framarin. Montreal: Agence d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'interventions en santé; 2003:xxii–81.Google Scholar
4. Barbot, J. How to build an “active” patient? The work of AIDS associations in France. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:538–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Battista, RN, Hodge, MJ. The existing paradigm of health technology assessment: Reflections for the millennium. CMAJ. 1999;160:1464–1467.Google Scholar
6. Brown, P, Zavestoski, S. Social movements in health: An introduction. Sociol Health Illn. 2004;26:679–694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Caron-Flinterman, JF, Broerse, JE, Bunders, JF. The experiential knowledge of patients: A new resource for biomedical research? Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:2575–2584.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Eisenberg, JM. Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA. 1999;282:1865–1868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Entwistle, VA, Renfrew, MJ, Yearley, S, Forrester, J, Lamont, T. Lay perspectives: Advantages for health research. BMJ. 1998;316:463–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Entwistle, VA, Watt, IS, Davis, H, et al. Developing information materials to present the findings of technology assessments to consumers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:47–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Fox, NJ, Ward, KJ, O'Rourke, AJ. The ‘expert patient’: Empowerment or medical dominance? The case of weight loss, pharmaceutical drugs and the Internet. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:1299–1309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Germann, K, Wilson, D. Organizational capacity for community development in regional health authorities: A conceptual model. Health Promot Int. 2004;19:289–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Greer, AL, Goodwin, JS, Freeman, JL, Wu, ZH. Bringing the patient back in: Guidelines, practice variations, and the social context of medical practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:747–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Harrisson, MI. Organizational diagnosis and assessment: Bridging theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Hartley, J, Benington, J. Copy and paste, or graft and transplant? Knowledge sharing through inter-organizational networks. Public Money Manage. 2006;26:101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Hivon, M, Lehoux, P, Denis, JL, Tailliez, S. Use of health technology assessment in decision making: Coresponsibility of users and producers? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:268–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. ICES. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in asymptomatic men. Ottawa: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2002.Google Scholar
18. ICES. What effects do provincial drug plan coverage policies for new drugs have on patterns of use and cost? Ottawa: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences; 2003.Google Scholar
19. Jørgensen, T, Hvenegaard, A, Kristensen, FB. Health technology assessment in Denmark. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:347–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Lavis, JN. Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26:37–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Lomas, J, Fulop, N, Gagnon, D, Allen, P. On being a good listener: Setting priorities for applied health services research. Milbank Q. 2003;81:363–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Menon, D, Stafinski, T. A Canadian health technology diffusion and management strategy: A discussion paper. Ottawa: Federal/Provincial/Territorial Working Group on the Canadian Health Technology Strategy; 2003.Google Scholar
23. NHMRC. Guide to effective participation of consumers and communities in developing and disseminating health information. Canberra: Australian Government; 2006.Google Scholar
24. Nilsen, ES, Myrhaug, HT, Johansen, M, Oliver, S, Oxman, AD. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; 3: CD004563.Google Scholar
25. Patton, MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Peltz, DC. Some expanded perspectives on the use of social science in public policy. In: Yinger, J, Cutler, S, eds. Major social issues: A multidisciplinary view. New York: Free Press; 1978:346–357.Google Scholar
27. Pivik, J, Rode, E, Ward, C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy. 2004;69:253–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Royle, J, Oliver, S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:493–497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Strauss, A, Corbin, J. Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1998.Google Scholar
30. Thompson, AG. The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: A taxonomy. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:1297–1310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed