Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:27:58.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A voice to be heard: patient and public involvement in health technology assessment and clinical practice guidelines in Malaysia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2021

Hanin Farhana Kamaruzaman Open the ORCID record for Hanin Farhana Kamaruzaman [Opens in a new window] ,
Ku Nurhasni Ku Abd Rahim ,
Izzuna Mudla Mohamed Ghazali  and
Mohd Aminuddin Mohd Yusof
Hanin Farhana Kamaruzaman*
Affiliation:
Medical Development Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Malaysian Health Technology Assessment Section, Putrajaya62590, Malaysia
Ku Nurhasni Ku Abd Rahim
Affiliation:
Medical Development Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Malaysian Health Technology Assessment Section, Putrajaya62590, Malaysia
Izzuna Mudla Mohamed Ghazali
Affiliation:
Medical Development Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Malaysian Health Technology Assessment Section, Putrajaya62590, Malaysia
Mohd Aminuddin Mohd Yusof
Affiliation:
Medical Development Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Malaysian Health Technology Assessment Section, Putrajaya62590, Malaysia
*
Author for correspondence: Hanin Farhana Kamaruzaman, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health technology assessment (HTA) is widely promoted to ensure that all health-related decisions are made after taking into consideration the viewpoints of important stakeholders. In Malaysia, patients or their representatives have been involved in the development of HTA and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) since 2009 and their influences have been growing steadily over the years. This paper aimed to describe the journey, achievements, challenges, and future direction of the PPI throughout all stages of the development and implementation of HTA and CPG in Malaysia. Currently, in Malaysia, patients or their representatives are mainly involved during the initial development of HTA and CPG drafts as well as during the internal and external reviews. Additionally, they are also encouraged to be involved during the implementation of HTA and CPG recommendations. Although their involvement in this aspect has slowly increased over time, challenges remain in the form of limited representativeness of selected patients or carers, uncertainty on the level of patient involvement allowed during the HTA/CPG development processes, and limited health literacy, which affect their ability to contribute meaningfully throughout the processes. Continuous improvement in these processes is important as patients or their representatives play a pivotal role in ensuring transparency, accountability, and credibility throughout the HTA/CPG development and decision-making processes.

Keywords

Technology assessmentPatientsPatient participationPublic opinion
Type
Perspective
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , 2021 , e47
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. 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

Messina, J, Grainger, DL. A pilot study to identify areas for further improvements in patient and public involvement in health technology assessments for medicines. Patient. 2012;5:199–211.Google ScholarPubMed
Sabirin, J, Syful Azlie, MF, Maharita, AR. Prostate cancer screening. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Ministry of Health Malaysia; 2010. Report No.: MOH/P/PAK/210.10(TR). Available from: https://www.moh.gov.my/moh/resources/auto%20download%20images/587f10a3253b5.pdf.Google Scholar
Izzuna Mudla, MG, Roza, S, Zalina, A; Computerised cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with depression. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Ministry of Health Malaysia. 2011. Report No.: MOH/P/PAK/232.12(TR). Available from: https://www.moh.gov.my/moh/resources/auto%20download%20images/587f112dd18f8.pdf.Google Scholar
Boothe, K. Getting to the table: Changing ideas about public and patient involvement in Canadian drug assessment. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2019;44:631–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wale, J, Scott, AM, Hofmann, B, Garner, S, Low, E, Sansom, L. Why patients should be involved in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33:1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staniszewska, S, Brett, J, Mockford, C, Barber, R. The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:391–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staniszewska, S, Brett, J, Simera, I, Seers, K, Mockford, C, Goodlad, S et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: Tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017 2;3:13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abelson, J, Wagner, F, DeJean, D, Boesveld, S, Gauvin, FP, Bean, S et al. Public and patient involvement in health technology assessment: A framework for action. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32:256–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OHTAC Public Engagement Subcommittee. Public engagement for Health Technology Assessment at Health Quality Ontario—Final Report from the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee Public Engagement Subcommittee [Internet]. Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario; 2015 April. p. 57. Available from: http://www.hqontario.ca/evidence/publications-and-ohtac-recommendations/other-reports/specialreports.Google Scholar
Weeks, L, Polisena, J, Scott, AM, Holtorf, AP, Staniszewska, S, Facey, K. Evaluation of patient and public involvement initiatives in health technology assessment: A survey of international agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33:715–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed