Anna Mae Scott

Patient advocate perspectives on involvement in HTA: an international snapshot

Plain English summaryA number of health technology assessment (HTA) organisations have developed processes to engage patients in the assessment of new health technologies such as pharmaceuticals, diagnostic tests, devices or medical procedures. Typically, this involves the HTA agency providing an opportunity for patient advocates and their patient organisations (support groups for patients with a specific disease or condition) to provide submissions detailing experiences with the disease and the health technology that is being assessed. While some literature exists about how HTA agencies view the engagement of patients in the HTA process, it is not yet clear how the patient advocates and patient organisations themselves view this engagement. To answer this question, we surveyed the views of patient advocates who were members of patient organisations known to be engaged in the process of HTA or evidence-based practice. Snowballing – that is, passing on the survey invitation from individuals invited to take part in the survey to other individuals – occurred in one of the countries. The responses in this country provided a very useful comparison between the views of people who were appointed as the ‘patient representatives’ on an HTA committee with those who contributed input as part of the general patient organisation engagement process. Our findings identify gaps in understanding of the purpose of patient involvement and whether patient organisations felt their input made a difference, the information and support provided, and if and how feedback is given to the patient organisations. Our work can help inform further research as well as continuing improvements in HTA patient engagement processes.AbstractBackground Patient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) processes is becoming more frequent. However, it is not clear how patient advocates and their disease-based patient organisations that are involved in HTA view their involvement. We report on the results of an international survey of patient advocates and members of patient organisations about their experiences and perceptions of that involvement. Methods A 16-question survey was sent out to patient advocates and members of patient groups known to be involved in HTA processes or evidence-based practice. The survey consisted of open-ended questions focusing on respondent characteristics, stage and nature of involvement, support from HTA agencies for involvement, purpose of involvement, feedback on involvement, and whether the respondents felt that their input made a difference. Results Of 16 individuals who received the survey, 15 responded. Three, from Italy, Israel and Japan, were not involved in HTA in their country. Respondents from the following countries reported involvement in HTA processes: Canada, England, Scotland, and Wales, The Netherlands, Australia, Taiwan. The respondents indicated that HTA agencies reach out to them either actively or passively, and that their involvement is often at the appraisal stage of HTA. Typically, they reported involvement as either participants in committees or providers of submissions to HTA agencies. A wide range of approaches to supporting patient involvement by the HTA agencies was identified by respondents – including personal and telephone support, online resources, training and provision of information – but the level and type of support reported was uneven across jurisdictions. Not all respondents were clear on the purpose of their involvement in HTA, although some were able to cite specific examples of how their input made a difference; members of an HTA decision-making committee appeared to have a better understanding and were able to give examples. Feedback from HTA agencies to the patient groups on their submissions is often not provided. Conclusions Although considerable progress has been made in terms of engaging patients and patient groups in HTA, gaps remain in how involvement is supported, including facilitating involvement, clarity on roles, two-way flow of information, and methods for enhancing communication between patient organisations and HTA agencies.

Developing Guidance on Ethics for Patient Groups Collecting and Reporting Patient Information for Health Technology Assessments

Agencies around the world are seeking to include patient and carer perspectives in health technology assessments (HTAs) [1–3], as this may enable a more accurate assessment of a health technology [2] and lead to more appropriate decisions for patients [4]. In a 2010 survey of International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) members, 22 agencies reported involving consumers (defined to include patients) in their HTA processes [1], and the Health Technology Assessment International’s (HTAi’s) Interest Group for Patient and Citizen Involvement (PCIG) has published summaries of the patient involvement processes of 11 HTA agencies [5]. In addition to these perspectives being gained through literature reviews and primary research [6], patient perspectives are sought through patient submissions, which usually take the form of responses to questions designed to elicit information not found in the published literature, such as patients’ and caregivers’ needs, preferences and experiences [7–11]. To create these submissions, some patient groups collaborate with researchers, but others gather the information from their members themselves using tools such as call logs, social media, surveys, interviews and focus groups. Because this entails engaging with people and collecting their personal information, patient groups need to consider the ethical and legal issues and implications. As no guidance on these issues could be located, the PCIG began developing its own specifically for patient groups involved in this work.

Q-SEA - a tool for quality assessment of ethics analyses conducted as part of health technology assessments

Introduction: Assessment of ethics issues is an important part of health technology assessments (HTA). However, in terms of existence of quality assessment tools, ethics for HTA is methodologically underdeveloped in comparison to other areas of HTA, such as clinical or cost effectiveness. Objective: To methodologically advance ethics for HTA by: (1) proposing and elaborating Q-SEA, the first instrument for quality assessment of ethics analyses, and (2) applying Q-SEA to a sample systematic review of ethics for HTA, in order to illustrate and facilitate its use. Methods: To develop a list of items for the Q-SEA instrument, we systematically reviewed the literature on methodology in ethics for HTA, reviewed HTA organizations’ websites, and solicited views from 32 experts in the field of ethics for HTA at two 2-day workshops. We subsequently refined Q-SEA through its application to an ethics analysis conducted for HTA. Results: Q-SEA instrument consists of two domains – the process domain and the output domain. The process domain consists of 5 elements: research question, literature search, inclusion/exclusion criteria, perspective, and ethics framework. The output domain consists of 5 elements: completeness, bias, implications, conceptual clarification, and conflicting values. Conclusion: Q-SEA is the first instrument for quality assessment of ethics analyses in HTA. Further refinements to the instrument to enhance its usability continue.

Controlling antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infections

Prescribing less is safe for patients and better for all of us

EVALUATION OF PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INITIATIVES IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES

OBJECTIVES Although there is increased awareness of patient and public involvement (PPI) among health technology assessment (HTA) organizations, evaluations of PPI initiatives are relatively scarce. Our objective as members of Health Technology Assessment Internationals (HTAis) Patient and Citizen Involvement Group (PCIG) was to advance understanding of the range of evaluation strategies adopted by HTA organizations and their potential usefulness. METHODS In March 2016, a survey was sent to fifty-four HTA organizations through the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and contacts of members of HTAis PCIG. Respondents were asked about their organizational structure; how patients and members of the public are involved; whether and how PPI initiatives have been evaluated, and, if so, which facilitators and challenges to evaluation were found and how results were used and disseminated. RESULTS Fifteen (n = 15) programs from twelve countries responded (response rate 27.8 percent) that involved patients (14/15) and members of the public (10/15) in HTA activities. Seven programs evaluated their PPI activities, including participant satisfaction (5/7), process (5/7) and impact evaluations (4/7). Evaluation results were used to improve PPI activities, identify education and training needs, and direct strategic priorities. Facilitators and challenges revolved around the need for stakeholder buy-in, sufficient resources, senior leadership, and including patients in evaluations. CONCLUSIONS A small but diverse set of HTA organizations evaluate their PPI activities using a range of strategies that reflect the range of rationales and approaches to PPI in HTA. It will be important for HTA organizations to draw on evaluation theories and methods.

Adverse events in patients taking cephalosporins versus placebo for any indication

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To quantify the incidence of any reported adverse event in patients taking cephalosporins compared with placebo for any indication.

A systematic review of performance-enhancing pharmacologicals and biotechnologies in the Army

Introduction In 2015, the Australian Army commissioned a systematic review to assess the evidence on effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and biotechnological products for cognitive enhancement specifically in Army personnel. Methods Searches for studies examining biotechnological and pharmacological products in Army populations were conducted in December 2015. Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched without date or language restrictions. WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify ongoing trials. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated for risk of bias using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool. Due to heterogeneity of findings, meta-analysis could not be conducted. Findings were synthesised narratively and by vote-counting method. Results Sixteen pharmacological enhancement products were evaluated in 22 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving 1284 personnel. Only three of the studies were published since 2010. The interventions evaluated were varied, including supplements (eg, carbohydrate), stimulants (eg, caffeine) and hormones (eg, melatonin). Generally, caffeine provided an improvement in performance compared with placebo on 5/7 reported cognitive outcomes, followed by levothyroxine (four cognitive outcomes) and prazosin (three cognitive outcomes). Performance results were mixed (finding an improvement and no effect in comparison to placebo) for caffeine and melatonin on two outcomes. No evidence was found pertaining to biotechnological products. Studies rarely reported safety outcomes (eg, adverse events and addiction). Conclusion Findings from this review need to be interpreted with considerable caution. Future studies should include outcomes such as acute and long-term adverse events, and should evaluate cognitive performance using cognitive tests that are specific to the Army population.

Resistance decay in individuals after antibiotic exposure in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundAntibiotic resistance is an urgent global problem, but reversibility is poorly understood. We examined the development and decay of bacterial resistance in community patients after antibiotic use.MethodsThis was a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL (from inception to May 2017) were searched, with forward and backward citation searches of the identified studies. We contacted authors whose data were unclear, and of abstract-only reports, for further information. We considered controlled or times-series studies of patients in the community who were given antibiotics and where the subsequent prevalence of resistant bacteria was measured. Two authors extracted risk of bias and data. The meta-analysis used a fixed-effects model.ResultsOf 24,492 articles screened, five controlled and 20 time-series studies (total 16,353 children and 1461 adults) were eligible.Resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae initially increased fourfold after penicillin-class antibiotic exposure [odds ratio (OR) 4.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5–5.4], but this fell after 1 month (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3–2.1). After cephalosporin-class antibiotics, resistance increased (OR 2.2, 95%CI 1.7-2.9); and fell to (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.3) at 1 month. After macrolide-class antibiotics, resistance increased (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.9–7.6) and persisted for 1 month (OR 5.2, 95% CI 2.6–10.3) and 3 months (OR 8.1, 95% CI 4.6–14.2, from controlled studies and OR 2.3, 95% CI 0.6–9.4, from time-series studies).Resistance in Haemophilus influenzae after penicillins was not significantly increased (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9–1.9) initially but was at 1 month (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.5–7.6), falling after 3 months (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.5–2.2). Data were sparse for cephalosporins and macrolides.Resistance in Enterobacter increased post-exposure (OR 3.2, 95% CI 0.9–10.8, from controlled studies and OR 7.1, 95% CI 4.2–12, from time-series studies], but was lower after 1 month (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.9–3.6).ConclusionsResistance generally increased soon after antibiotic use. For some antibiotic classes and bacteria, it partially diminished after 1 and 3 months, but longer-term data are lacking and urgently needed.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42015025499.

Expediting citation screening using PICo-based title-only screening for identifying studies in scoping searches and rapid reviews

BackgroundCitation screening for scoping searches and rapid review is time-consuming and inefficient, often requiring days or sometimes months to complete. We examined the reliability of PICo-based title-only screening using keyword searches based on the PICo elements—Participants, Interventions, and Comparators, but not the Outcomes.MethodsA convenience sample of 10 datasets, derived from the literature searches of completed systematic reviews, was used to test PICo-based title-only screening. Search terms for screening were generated from the inclusion criteria of each review, specifically the PICo elements—Participants, Interventions and Comparators. Synonyms for the PICo terms were sought, including alternatives for clinical conditions, trade names of generic drugs and abbreviations for clinical conditions, interventions and comparators. The MeSH database, Wikipedia, Google searches and online thesauri were used to assist generating terms. Title-only screening was performed by five reviewers independently in Endnote X7 reference management software using OR Boolean operator. Outcome measures were recall of included studies and the reduction in screening effort. Recall is the proportion of included studies retrieved using PICo title-only screening out of the total number of included studies in the original reviews. The percentage reduction in screening effort is the proportion of records not needing screening because the method eliminates them from the screen set.ResultsAcross the 10 reviews, the reduction in screening effort ranged from 11 to 78% with a median reduction of 53%. In nine systematic reviews, the recall of included studies was 100%. In one review (oxygen therapy), four of five reviewers missed the same included study (median recall 67%). A post hoc analysis was performed on the dataset with the lowest reduction in screening effort (11%), and it was rescreened using only the intervention and comparator keywords and omitting keywords for participants. The reduction in screening effort increased to 57%, and the recall of included studies was maintained (100%).ConclusionsIn this sample of datasets, PICo-based title-only screening was able to expedite citation screening for scoping searches and rapid reviews by reducing the number of citations needed to screen but requires a thorough workup of the potential synonyms and alternative terms. Further research which evaluates the feasibility of this technique with heterogeneous datasets in different fields would be useful to inform the generalisability of this technique.

Strengthening international patient advocacy perspectives on patient involvement in HTA within the HTAi Patient and Citizen Involvement Interest Group – Commentary

Plain Language SummaryHealth Technology Assessment (HTA) is an evidence-based decision-making process, focusing on evaluating health technologies for funding within a healthcare system. ‘Health technologies’ include medications, medical devices, diagnostics, medical procedures and services. Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) is a global society for those who produce, use, participate in, or encounter HTA. The HTAi Secretariat supports special interest groups within HTAi. One such special interest group, the Patient and Citizen Involvement in HTA Interest Group (PCIG), focuses on strengthening patient involvement in HTA. PCIG’s members are from HTA agencies, research, industry, and patient organisations. We describe the steps PCIG has taken to form an international panel of patient advocates (the Patient Panel) as an autonomous group within its governance structure that reports directly to the PCIG Steering Committee. The Patient Panel was established in order to strengthen meaningful patient involvement in HTA by working co-productively with other PCIG members to develop resources accessible to patient organisations.Patient advocates known to be active within HTA in their own countries were invited to form the inaugural group, with one person appointed to chair the group for the first year. Documentation had been prepared to inform potential members and set out potential roles as seen by the Steering Committee. The appointed Patient Panel is defining its own terms of reference, goals and objectives. The Panel Chair is a member of the PCIG Steering Committee, and is mentored by the retiring PCIG chair. A registry of activities is part of monitoring and evaluation.AbstractBackground Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is an evidence-based decision-making process, focusing on evaluating health technologies for funding within a healthcare system or medical insurance system. ‘Health technologies’ are understood broadly, and include medications, medical devices, diagnostics, medical procedures and services. Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) is a global society for those who produce, use, participate in, or encounter HTA. The HTAi Secretariat supports special interest groups within HTAi, including the Patient and Citizen Involvement in HTA Interest Group (PCIG), which focuses on strengthening patient involvement in HTA. PCIG’s members come from HTA agencies, research, industry, and patient organisations. Main body We describe the steps the PCIG has taken to form an international panel of patient advocates as an autonomous group within its governance structure, reporting directly to the PCIG Steering Committee. Patient advocates known to be active within HTA in their own countries were invited to form the inaugural group. One person was invited to chair the Panel for the first year of its operation, based on the candidate’s experience of working across diseases and countries, and being new to HTAi. Documentation was prepared to inform potential members of the Panel and set out potential roles as seen by the Steering Committee. The Panel came into being in March 2016 and is now setting out its own working principles, goals and objectives. The Panel Chair is a member of the PCIG Steering Committee, and is mentored by the previous PCIG chair. A registry of activities has been set up as part of monitoring and evaluation.The Patient Panel is intended to provide a focus within the PCIG for patient advocates to work among themselves and co-productively through the PCIG Working Groups to develop mutual understanding and strengthen meaningful patient involvement in HTA internationally. Patient advocates can benefit from a clear understanding the evidence requirements within HTA and how information can be effectively presented by patient groups to decision-making bodies. Conclusion The HTAi Patient and Citizen Involvement Interest Group has set up a Patient Panel consisting of patient advocates. The intent is to work co-productively to advance patient involvement in HTA.