Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T12:26:52.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Community engagement in Health Technology Assessment and beyond: from guests in the process to hosts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2020

Catherine M. Holliday Open the ORCID record for Catherine M. Holliday [Opens in a new window]
Catherine M. Holliday*
Affiliation:
Centre for Community-Driven Research, Rue Du Conseil Général 6, 1205Genève, Switzerland
*
Author for correspondence: Catherine M. Holliday, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Health Technology Assessment (HTA), clinical and economic evidence are assessed in the regulatory and reimbursement environments, with community input considered as complementary to this. Stakeholders are calling for more meaningful community engagement, but this will not be reached without a significant shift. The Centre for Community-Driven Research (CCDR) is a nonprofit organization bringing much needed change to the way we think about community engagement in health. This article is based on CCDR's experience and outlines three system changes needed to advance community engagement in decisions about health and HTA. This paper comes from the perspective of engaging everyday people in the process as opposed to representation on panels and committees. The three key areas of change that are discussed include building holistic evidence, creating supportive environments, and infrastructure for community engagement, with the term community referring to people affected by disease or health conditions and their carers/families.

Keywords

Capacity buildingcommunity engagement infrastructurepersonal feedbackreal-world evidence
Type
Perspective
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , 2021 , e27
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by 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

Booth, A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A structured methodological review. Syst Rev. 2016;5:74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vasileiou, K, Barnett, J, Thorpe, S, Young, T. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: Systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Facey, K, Boivin, A, Gracia, J, Ploug Hansen, H, Lo Scalzo, A, Mossman, J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briony, J, Ficklin, L. To walk in their shoes: Recognising the expression of empathy as a research reality. Emotion, Space Soc. 2012;5:103e–12.Google Scholar
Martinez, L, Carolan, K, O'Donnell, A, Diaz, Y, Freeman, E. Community engagement in patient-centered outcomes research: Benefits, barriers, and measurement. J Clin Transl Sci. 2018;2:371–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacQueen, K, Bhan, A, Frohlich, J, Holzer, J, Sugarman, J, Ethics Working Group of the HIV Prevention Trials Network. Evaluating community engagement in global health research: The need for metrics. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16:44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mosconi, P, Satolli, R, Colombo, C, Villano, W. Does a consumer training work? A follow-up survey of the Partecipa Salute training programs. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012;10:27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar