Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T15:23:25.432Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perspectives on health technology assessment: response from the patient's perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2004

Angela Coulter
Angela Coulter
Affiliation:
Picker Institute Europe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Health technology assessment (HTA) involves values and judgments, but there have been few attempts to seek the views of members of the public or to ensure that they have access to the results. Patients and citizens can make an important contribution to HTA by determining priorities for assessment, designing and conducting assessments and appraisals, receiving and using the findings, and engaging in debates about policy priorities and rationing. Those responsible for HTA should make greater efforts to involve the public and ensure that the findings are accessible to patients for use when making treatment choices.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentPatients
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 92 - 96
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

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

Chalmers I. 1995 What do I want from health research and researchers when I am a patient? BMJ. 310: 1315– 1318.Google Scholar
Chinitz D. 2002 Regulated competition and citizen participation: Lessons from Israel. Health Expectations. 3: 90– 96.Google Scholar
Coulter A. 2002 The autonomous patient. London: Nuffield Trust
Coulter A, Ham C. 2000 The global challenge of health care rationing. Buckingham: Open University Press
Daniels N. 1996 Justice, fair procedures, and the goals of medicine. Hastings Center Report. 10–2.Google Scholar
Edwards A, Elwyn G. 2001 Evidence based patient choice: Inevitable or impossible? Oxford: Oxford University Press
Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P. 1999 Shared decision-making in primary care: The neglected second half of the consultation. Br J Gen Pract. 477– 482.Google Scholar
Entwistle VA, Renfrew MJ, Yearley S, Forrester J, Lamont T. 1998 Lay perspectives: Advantages for health research. BMJ. 316: 463– 466.Google Scholar
Entwistle VA, Watt IS, Davis H, et al. 1998 Developing information materials to present the findings of technology assessments to consumers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 14: 47– 70.Google Scholar
Goodare H, Smith R. 1995 The rights of patients in research. BMJ. 310: 1277– 1278.Google Scholar
Ham C, Coulter A. 2001 Explicit and implicit rationing: Taking responsibility and avoiding blame for health care choices. J Health Serv Res Policy. 6: 163– 169.Google Scholar
Haynes RB, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH. 2002 Physicians' and patients' choices in evidence based practice. BMJ. 324: 1350.Google Scholar
Holm S. 2000 Developments in the Nordic countries–Goodbye to the simple solutions. In: Coulter A, Ham C, eds. The global challenge of health care rationing. Buckingham: Open University Press
Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Entwistle V, Coulter A, et al. 2001 Patient choice modules for summaries of clinical effectiveness: A proposal. BMJ. 322: 664– 667.Google Scholar
NICE Citizens Council. 2002 Determining “clinical need”. Salford 21st-23rd November. London: NICE
O'Connor A, Edwards A. 2001 The role of decision aids in promoting evidence-based patient choice. In: Edwards A, Elwyn G, eds. Evidence-based patient choice: Inevitable or impossible? Oxford: Oxford University Press
O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Rovner D, et al. 2002 Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions (Cochrane Review). Oxford: Update Software
Oliver S, Milne R, Bradburn J, et al. 2001 Involving consumers in a needs-led research programme: A pilot project. Health Expect. 4: 18– 28.Google Scholar
Rawlins M. 1999 In pursuit of quality: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Lancet. 353: 1079– 1082.Google Scholar
Wennberg JE. 1984 Dealing with medical practice variations: A proposal for action. Health Aff. 3: 6– 32.Google Scholar