IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v70y2010i10p1518-1526.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

"It all depends": Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies

Author

Listed:
  • Gauvin, Francois-Pierre
  • Abelson, Julia
  • Giacomini, Mita
  • Eyles, John
  • Lavis, John N.

Abstract

There have been calls in recent years for greater public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA). Yet the concept of public involvement is poorly articulated and little attention has been paid to the context of HTA agencies. This article investigates how public involvement is conceptualized in the HTA agency environment. Using qualitative concept analysis methods, we reviewed the HTA literature and the websites of HTA agencies and conducted semi-structured interviews with informants in Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. Our analysis reveals that HTA agencies' role as bridges or boundary organizations situated at the frontier of research and policymaking causes the agencies to struggle with the idea of public involvement. The HTA community is concerned with conceptualizing public involvement in such a way as to meet scientific and methodological standards without neglecting its responsibilities to healthcare policymakers. We offer a conceptual tool for analyzing the nature of public involvement across agencies, characterizing different domains, levels of involvement, and types of publics.

Suggested Citation

  • Gauvin, Francois-Pierre & Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Eyles, John & Lavis, John N., 2010. ""It all depends": Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1518-1526, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:10:p:1518-1526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(10)00118-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Lehoux, Pascale & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2007. "Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-50, June.
    2. Pivik, Jayne & Rode, Elisabeth & Ward, Christopher, 2004. "A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 253-268, August.
    3. Goven, Joanna, 2008. "Assessing genetic testing: Who are the "lay experts"?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 1-18, January.
    4. McDaid, David, 2003. "Co-ordinating health technology assessment in Canada: a European perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 205-213, February.
    5. Tritter, Jonathan Quetzal & McCallum, Alison, 2006. "The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 156-168, April.
    6. Litva, Andrea & Coast, Joanna & Donovan, Jenny & Eyles, John & Shepherd, Michael & Tacchi, Jo & Abelson, Julia & Morgan, Kieran, 2002. "'The public is too subjective': public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(12), pages 1825-1837, June.
    7. Wait, Suzanne & Nolte, Ellen, 2006. "Public involvement policies in health: exploring their conceptual basis," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 149-162, April.
    8. Banta, David, 2003. "The development of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 121-132, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    RePEc Biblio mentions

    As found on the RePEc Biblio, the curated bibliography for Economics:
    1. > Economic Development Technological Change, and Growth > Technological Change: Choices and Consequences > Technology Assessment > Health Technology Assessment

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Regier, Dean A. & Bentley, Colene & Mitton, Craig & Bryan, Stirling & Burgess, Michael M. & Chesney, Ellen & Coldman, Andy & Gibson, Jennifer & Hoch, Jeffrey & Rahman, Syed & Sabharwal, Mona & Sawka, , 2014. "Public engagement in priority-setting: Results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 130-139.
    2. Steffensen, Mette B. & Matzen, Christina L. & Wadmann, Sarah, 2022. "Patient participation in priority setting: Co-existing participant roles," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    3. Josie Messina & David Grainger, 2012. "A Pilot Study to Identify Areas for Further Improvements in Patient and Public Involvement in Health Technology Assessments for Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(3), pages 199-211, September.
    4. Fischer, Katharina E. & Rogowski, Wolf H. & Leidl, Reiner & Stollenwerk, Björn, 2013. "Transparency vs. closed-door policy: Do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 187-196.
    5. Ahmed Rashid & Victoria Thomas & Toni Shaw & Gillian Leng, 2017. "Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Healthcare Guidance: An Overview of Current Methods and Future Challenges," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(3), pages 277-282, June.
    6. Cavazza, Marianna & Jommi, Claudio, 2012. "Stakeholders involvement by HTA Organisations: Why is so different?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 236-245.
    7. Bombard, Yvonne & Abelson, Julia & Simeonov, Dorina & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2011. "Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 135-144, July.
    8. Elena Nicod, 2017. "Why do health technology assessment coverage recommendations for the same drugs differ across settings? Applying a mixed methods framework to systematically compare orphan drug decisions in four Europ," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 715-730, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bombard, Yvonne & Abelson, Julia & Simeonov, Dorina & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2011. "Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 135-144, July.
    2. Elberse, Janneke Elisabeth & Pittens, Carina Anna Cornelia Maria & de Cock Buning, Tjard & Broerse, Jacqueline Elisabeth Willy, 2012. "Patient involvement in a scientific advisory process: Setting the research agenda for medical products," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 231-242.
    3. Goven, Joanna, 2008. "Assessing genetic testing: Who are the "lay experts"?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(1), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Dobiášová, Karolína & Kotherová, Zuzana & Numerato, Dino, 2021. "Institutional reforms to strengthen patient and public involvement in the Czech Republic since 2014," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(5), pages 582-586.
    5. Josie Messina & David Grainger, 2012. "A Pilot Study to Identify Areas for Further Improvements in Patient and Public Involvement in Health Technology Assessments for Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(3), pages 199-211, September.
    6. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    7. Degeling, Chris & Carter, Stacy M. & Rychetnik, Lucie, 2015. "Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 114-121.
    8. Greer, Scott L. & Stewart, Ellen A. & Wilson, Iain & Donnelly, Peter D., 2014. "Victory for volunteerism? Scottish health board elections and participation in the welfare state," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 221-228.
    9. Hodgetts, Katherine & Elshaug, Adam G. & Hiller, Janet E., 2012. "What counts and how to count it: Physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2191-2199.
    10. Ciani, Oriana & Tarricone, Rosanna & Torbica, Aleksandra, 2012. "Diffusion and use of health technology assessment in policy making: What lessons for decentralised healthcare systems?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 194-202.
    11. Lancaster, K. & Seear, K. & Treloar, C. & Ritter, A., 2017. "The productive techniques and constitutive effects of ‘evidence-based policy’ and ‘consumer participation’ discourses in health policy processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 60-68.
    12. Jabbar, Amina M. & Abelson, Julia, 2011. "Development of a framework for effective community engagement in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-69, June.
    13. Wahl, Charlotte, 2013. "Swedish municipalities and public participation in the traffic planning process – Where do we stand?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 105-112.
    14. Charles Cunningham & Ken Deal & Yvonne Chen, 2010. "Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 3(4), pages 257-273, December.
    15. Wang, Yi & Rattanavipapong, Waranya & Teerawattananon, Yot, 2021. "Using health technology assessment to set priority, inform target product profiles, and design clinical study for health innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    16. Anne Seneca Terkelsen & Christian Tolstrup Wester & Gabriel Gulis & Jørgen Jespersen & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen, 2022. "Co-Creation and Co-Production of Health Promoting Activities Addressing Older People—A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-20, October.
    17. Nitsch, Martina & Waldherr, Karin & Denk, Enrica & Griebler, Ursula & Marent, Benjamin & Forster, Rudolf, 2013. "Participation by different stakeholders in participatory evaluation of health promotion: A literature review," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 42-54.
    18. Richard Peter Bailey & Suria Angit, 2022. "Conceptualising Inclusion and Participation in the Promotion of Healthy Lifestyles," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-14, August.
    19. Velasco Garrido, Marcial & Gerhardus, Ansgar & Røttingen, John-Arne & Busse, Reinhard, 2010. "Developing Health Technology Assessment to address health care system needs," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 196-202, March.
    20. Li, Kathy K. & Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Contandriopoulos, Damien, 2015. "Conceptualizing the use of public involvement in health policy decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 14-21.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Canada UK Denmark Public involvement Health technology assessment;

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Technology Assessment

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:10:p:1518-1526. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.