Systematic priority setting is necessary for achieving high-quality healthcare using limited resources in low- and middle-income countries. Health technology assessment (HTA) is a tool that can be used for systematic priority setting. The objective of this study was to conduct a stakeholder and situational analysis of HTA in Zimbabwe.

We identified and analyzed stakeholders using the International Decision Support Initiative checklist. The identified stakeholders were invited to an HTA workshop convened at the University of Zimbabwe. We used an existing HTA situational analysis questionnaire to ask for participants’ views on the need, demand, and supply of HTA. A follow-up survey was done among representatives of stakeholder organizations that failed to attend the workshop. We reviewed two health policy documents relevant to the HTA. Qualitative data from the survey and document review were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Forty-eight organizations were identified as stakeholders for HTA in Zimbabwe. A total of 41 respondents from these stakeholder organizations participated in the survey. Respondents highlighted that the HTA was needed for transparent decision making. The demand for HTA-related evidence was high except for the health economic and ethics dimensions, perhaps reflecting a lack of awareness. Ministry of Health was listed as a major supplier of HTA data.

There is no formal HTA agency in the Zimbabwe healthcare system. Various institutions make decisions on prioritization, procurement, and coverage of health services. The activities undertaken by these organizations provide context for the institutionalization of HTA in Zimbabwe.

Engaging patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders to help guide the research process is a cornerstone of patient-centered research. Lived expertise may help ensure the relevance of research questions, promote practices that are satisfactory to research participants, improve transparency, and assist with disseminating findings.

Traditionally engagement has been conducted face-to-face in the local communities in which research operates. Decentralized platform trials pose new challenges for the practice of engagement. We used a remote model for stakeholder engagement, relying on Zoom meetings and blog communications.

Here we describe the approach used for research partnership with patients, caregivers, and clinicians in the planning and oversight of the ACTIV-6 trial and the impact of this work. We also present suggestions for future remote engagement.

The ACTIV-6 experience may inform proposed strategies for future engagement in decentralized trials.

The aim of this initiative was to examine collaboratively, in a multi-stakeholder team (health technology assessment (HTA) practitioners with patient involvement expertise, health technology industry, patient advocates, health policy experts, patient engagement experts), whether evidence generated through social media research (SMR) fills current information gaps relating to insights on specific aspects of patient experiences, preferences, or patient needs and delivers additional value to HTA.

The framing of the project was done in a co-creative, deliberative multi-stakeholder process. Challenge and refinement happened through discussions with 25 independent stakeholders from HTA bodies, industry, academia, and patient advocacy. For critical themes identified during the framing phase, scoping literature reviews were performed including the state of methods and examples for the use of SMR in HTA.

The framing and stakeholder discussions specified a set of expectations and requirements, and the scoping reviews revealed the current state of methods and usage of SMR in health-policy decision making.

The project concluded that SMR can contribute new, relevant evidence to HTA. It is however recommended to evolve the science through defining best practices when planning, conducting, and using SMR and to conduct multi-stakeholder pilot SMR projects to address questions relevant to current HTAs and to validate and improve the proposed practices.

The aim of this study was to identify key policy objectives by investigating the perception of important stakeholders and affected professionals concerning relevance and feasibility of a successful primary care (PC) reform.

Since 2013, the Austrian PC system has been undergoing a reform process to establish multiprofessional primary care units. The reforms have various defined objectives and lack clear priorities.

After the definition and consensus-based selection of 12 policy objectives, a cross-sectional online survey on their relevance and feasibility was distributed via email and social media to PC and public health networks. The survey was conducted in the period from January to February 2020. Results were analyzed descriptively, and further, Pearson Chi-Square Test or Fisher’s Exact Test was performed for group comparison regarding respondents’ characteristics. Open-ended responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

In total, 169 questionnaires were completed. A total of 46.3% of the responders had more than 20 years of professional experience (female: 60.5%). A mandatory internship in general practice, vocational training for general practice, and a modern remuneration system were the three top-rated policy objectives regarding relevance. A mandatory internship in general practice, specialization in general practice, and coding of services and diagnosis were assessed as the most feasible objectives. The group comparisons regarding working field, years of professional experience, age, and sex did not show any meaningful results in the evaluation of relevance and feasibility.

In the view of the study participants, easily obtainable objectives include adapting the duration and setting of internships for medical students, as well as mandatory vocational training for GP trainees. Further efforts are necessary to achieve complex objectives such as the adoption of a modern remuneration scheme and a comprehensive quality assurance program. Building capacity and creating team-oriented environments are also important aspects of a successful PC reform.

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) horizon scanning system is an early warning system for healthcare interventions in development that could disrupt standard care. We report preliminary findings from the patient engagement process.

The system involves broadly scanning many resources to identify and monitor interventions up to 3 years before anticipated entry into U.S. health care. Topic profiles are written on included interventions with late-phase trial data and circulated with a structured review form for stakeholder comment to determine disruption potential. Stakeholders include patients and caregivers recruited from credible community sources. They view an orientation video, comment on topic profiles, and take a survey about their experience.

As of March 2020, 312 monitored topics (some of which were archived) were derived from 3,500 information leads; 121 met the criteria for topic profile development and stakeholder comment. We invited fifty-four patients and caregivers to participate; thirty-nine reviewed at least one report. Their perspectives informed analyst nominations for fourteen topics in two 2019 High Potential Disruption Reports. Thirty-four patient stakeholders completed the user-experience survey. Most agreed (68 percent) or somewhat agreed (26 percent) that they were confident they could provide useful comments. Ninety-four percent would recommend others to participate.

The system has successfully engaged patients and caregivers, who contributed unique and important perspectives that informed the selection of topics deemed to have high potential to disrupt clinical care. Most participants would recommend others to participate in this process. More research is needed to inform optimal patient and caregiver stakeholder recruitment and engagement methods and reduce barriers to participation.

There are divergent views on the potential of real-world data (RWD) to inform decisions made by regulators, health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, payers, clinicians, and patients. This RWE4Decisions initiative explored the particularly challenging setting of highly innovative technologies, which require Payers/HTAs to make decisions on a small evidence base with major uncertainties. The aim was to go beyond strategic intent to consider actions that each stakeholder could take to improve use of RWD in this setting.

Case studies of recent Payer/HTA decisions about highly innovative technologies were considered in light of recent international initiatives about RWD. This showed a lack of clarity about the Payer/HTA questions that could be answered by RWD and how the quality of real-world evidence (RWE) could be assessed. All stakeholders worked together to create a vision whereby stakeholders agree what RWD can be collected for highly innovative technologies based on principles of collaboration and transparency. For each stakeholder group, recommended actions to support the generation, analysis, and interpretation of RWD to inform decision making were developed. For HTA bodies, this includes cross border HTA/regulatory collaboration to agree RWD requirements over the technology life cycle to inform initial recommendations and reassessment, data analytics methods development for HTA, and promotion of transparency in RWE studies.

Stakeholders need to collaborate on demonstration projects to consider how RWE can be developed to inform healthcare decisions and contribute to a learning network that can develop systems to support a learning health system and improve patient outcomes through best use of RWD.

To report from the Scientific Development and Capacity Building Committee of Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) on activities that are being undertaken within HTAi regarding the promotion of scientific rigor in the field of health technology assessment (HTA).

Retrieval of definitions of HTA that the SDCB committee considered reflective of the current practice of HTA, followed by a narrative synthesis of the core components of HTA.

Several definitions of HTA have been provided, all sharing the notion that HTA is the formal, systematic, and transparent inquiry into the meaning and value, broadly defined, of health technologies, when used in specific patient populations.

Many frameworks and tools have been developed for assessing the quality of specific tasks that may be conducted in the context of HTA. Collating such frameworks and tools is likely to be helpful in developing standards and in providing guidance as to how the scientific quality of HTA may be secured. Two current trends in HTA were noted: a stronger health systems focus, and the need to involve stakeholders throughout the HTA process. A wider systems’ perspective requires that plausible alternative scenarios are being developed, and wide consultation of various stakeholders is a prerequisite to the development of such scenarios with data from various sources.

Current trends in HTA will lead to different demands on the HTA expert. The task of this emerging policy professional would be not just to provide technical information for problem-solving, but also to combine it with a new function of facilitating public deliberation and learning.

This article discusses how participatory technology appraisal as part of the Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS) in Thailand contributes to improving access to essential health services among vulnerable populations.

Document review was conducted on health technology appraisal approaches introduced by the UCS. The review involves health benefit proposals advanced by stakeholders and also meeting minutes of relevant working groups and committees published between 2010 and 2015.

From the establishment of the UCS participatory technology appraisal mechanism in 2010 until 2015, a total of 133 health interventions have been nominated. Some nominations highlight problems in access to care among vulnerable populations. As policy advocates continue to be involved in the latter stages of coverage decisions, they have opportunities to persuade policy makers and other stakeholders to agree to the rationales of their proposals. Some interventions were rejected because they did not meet value for money, affordability, and feasibility criteria; however, topic nominations from stakeholders as well as relevant deliberation throughout the technology appraisal processes have a potential to improve accessibility of health care among the disadvantaged.

Through participation in the UCS policy-making processes, key stakeholders are able to direct the attention of decision makers to significant gaps in access to services among vulnerable citizens, a health system problem rarely brought to discussion by policy elites and experts. The Thai experience reaffirms participatory technology appraisal as a supportive measure to providing universal health coverage.

The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the community-based academic partnership roles in disaster risk management.

The assessment of the documents was conducted by reviewing abstracts and full papers of the available studies, which provided considerable background and promoted knowledge in academic interventional roles in disaster risk management. The articles were searched with a wide range of key words related to the research topic. The studies included the research available between 2000 and September 2017 in the English language. The selection of articles was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.

Of 997 articles, we selected 12 full-text articles that met the criteria for the final review based on the study objective. The results show that, although universities can play multidirectional roles in disaster risk management phases, the development of the academic partnership potential and collaboration for disaster risk management and disaster risk reduction for stakeholders is necessary.

The universities’ potential in providing sufficient disaster health literacy is not currently considered important enough in communities.Therefore, the proper context-bound models of development based on a community’s skills and universities’ potential should receive more attention.