IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v14y2021i4d10.1007_s40271-020-00445-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Economics Methodology Research: Reflections and Recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Hareth Al-Janabi

    (University of Birmingham)

  • Jenny Coles

    (University of Birmingham)

  • John Copping

    (University of Birmingham)

  • Nishit Dhanji

    (University of Birmingham)

  • Carol McLoughlin

    (University of Birmingham)

  • Jacky Murphy

    (University of Birmingham)

  • Jean Nicholls

    (University of Birmingham)

Abstract

Patient and public involvement (PPI) can be used in methods research, as well as applied research, in health economics. However, methods research goals may seem quite abstract when compared to the lived experiences of lay participants. This article draws on 4 years of PPI in a research project to develop methods for including family carer outcomes in economic evaluation. Key challenges in using PPI for health economics methods research relate to (1) training and preparation, (2) maintaining involvement, and (3) selecting suitable tasks. We suggest three criteria for selecting a research task for PPI input based on task importance, professional researcher skills gap, and potential PPI contribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Hareth Al-Janabi & Jenny Coles & John Copping & Nishit Dhanji & Carol McLoughlin & Jacky Murphy & Jean Nicholls, 2021. "Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health Economics Methodology Research: Reflections and Recommendations," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 421-427, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00445-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00445-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00445-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-020-00445-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Ilene L. Hollin & Benjamin M. Craig & Joanna Coast & Kathleen Beusterien & Caroline Vass & Rachael DiSantostefano & Holly Peay, 2020. "Reporting Formative Qualitative Research to Support the Development of Quantitative Preference Study Protocols and Corresponding Survey Instruments: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(1), pages 121-136, February.
    2. Jonathan Karnon, 2003. "Alternative decision modelling techniques for the evaluation of health care technologies: Markov processes versus discrete event simulation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(10), pages 837-848, October.
    3. Elizabeth Goodwin & Kate Boddy & Lynn Tatnell & Annie Hawton, 2018. "Involving Members of the Public in Health Economics Research: Insights from Selecting Health States for Valuation to Estimate Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) Weights," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 187-194, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Magda Aguiar & Mark Harrison & Sarah Munro & Tiasha Burch & K. Julia Kaal & Marie Hudson & Nick Bansback & Tracey-Lea Laba, 2021. "Designing Discrete Choice Experiments Using a Patient-Oriented Approach," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 389-397, July.
    2. Lih-Wen Mau & Jaime M. Preussler & Linda J. Burns & Susan Leppke & Navneet S. Majhail & Christa L. Meyer & Tatenda Mupfudze & Wael Saber & Patricia Steinert & David J. Vanness, 2020. "Healthcare Costs of Treating Privately Insured Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia in the United States from 2004 to 2014: A Generalized Additive Modeling Approach," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(5), pages 515-526, May.
    3. David J. Mott & Laura Ternent & Luke Vale, 2023. "Do preferences differ based on respondent experience of a health issue and its treatment? A case study using a public health intervention," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 413-423, April.
    4. Annie Hawton & Kate Boddy & Rebecca Kandiyali & Lynn Tatnell & Andy Gibson & Elizabeth Goodwin, 2021. "Involving Patients in Health Economics Research: “The PACTS Principles”," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 429-434, July.
    5. Annemieke Leunis & W. Redekop & Kees van Montfort & Bob Löwenberg & Carin Uyl-de Groot, 2013. "The Development and Validation of a Decision-Analytic Model Representing the Full Disease Course of Acute Myeloid Leukemia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(7), pages 605-621, July.
    6. Xiaoling Ge & Huanhuan Tong & Yongxia Song & Hongye He & Shuwen Li & Jingfang Hong & Wenru Wang, 2020. "The caring experience and supportive care needs of male partners for women with gynaecologic cancer: A qualitative literature review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(23-24), pages 4469-4481, December.
    7. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Jonathan Karnon & Jodi Gray, 2012. "A proposed model for economic evaluations of major depressive disorder," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(4), pages 501-510, August.
    8. Mattias Ekman & Peter Lindgren & Carolin Miltenburger & Genevieve Meier & Julie Locklear & Mary Chatterton, 2012. "Cost Effectiveness of Quetiapine in Patients with Acute Bipolar Depression and in Maintenance Treatment after an Acute Depressive Episode," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(6), pages 513-530, June.
    9. Merle Gijsbers & Iris Elise Keizer & Stephanie Else Schouten & Janneke Louise Trompert & Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Janine Astrid Til, 2021. "Public Preferences in Priority Setting when Admitting Patients to the ICU During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Pilot Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(3), pages 331-338, May.
    10. Wiebke Mohr & Anika Rädke & Adel Afi & Franka Mühlichen & Moritz Platen & Annelie Scharf & Bernhard Michalowsky & Wolfgang Hoffmann, 2022. "Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-21, July.
    11. Olivier Ethgen & Baudouin Standaert, 2012. "Population–versus Cohort–Based Modelling Approaches," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 171-181, March.
    12. Leslie Anne Campbell & John T. Blake & George Kephart & Eva Grunfeld & Donald MacIntosh, 2017. "Understanding the Effects of Competition for Constrained Colonoscopy Services with the Introduction of Population-level Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(2), pages 253-263, February.
    13. James A. Hall & Kika Konstantinou & Martyn Lewis & Raymond Oppong & Reuben Ogollah & Sue Jowett, 2019. "Systematic Review of Decision Analytic Modelling in Economic Evaluations of Low Back Pain and Sciatica," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 467-491, August.
    14. Jackson, Louise & Al-Janabi, Hareth & Roberts, Tracy & Ross, Jonthan, 2021. "Exploring young people's preferences for STI screening in the UK: A qualitative study and discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    15. An Tran-Duy & Annelies Boonen & Wietske Kievit & Piet Riel & Mart Laar & Johan Severens, 2014. "Modelling Outcomes of Complex Treatment Strategies Following a Clinical Guideline for Treatment Decisions in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 1015-1028, October.
    16. Schulenburg J.-Matthias Graf von der & Vauth Christoph, 2007. "Nach welchen ökonomischen Methoden sollten Gesundheitsleistungen in Deutschland evaluiert werden? / According to Which Economic Methods Should Health Care Services Become Evaluated in Germany?," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 227(5-6), pages 787-806, October.
    17. Viberg Johansson, Jennifer & Shah, Nisha & Haraldsdóttir, Eik & Bentzen, Heidi Beate & Coy, Sarah & Kaye, Jane & Mascalzoni, Deborah & Veldwijk, Jorien, 2021. "Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data: An approach towards selecting attributes for complex discrete choice experiment studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    18. Matthew J. Glover & Edmund Jones & Katya L. Masconi & Michael J. Sweeting & Simon G. Thompson, 2018. "Discrete Event Simulation for Decision Modeling in Health Care: Lessons from Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(4), pages 439-451, May.
    19. Stacy M. Carter & Patti Shih & Jane Williams & Chris Degeling & Julie Mooney-Somers, 2021. "Conducting Qualitative Research Online: Challenges and Solutions," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(6), pages 711-718, November.
    20. Catherine Lejeune & Kazem Al Zahouri & Marie-Christine Woronoff-Lemsi & Patrick Arveux & Alain Bernard & Christine Binquet & Francis Guillemin, 2005. "Use of a decision analysis model to assess the medicoeconomic implications of FDG PET imaging in diagnosing a solitary pulmonary nodule," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(3), pages 203-214, September.

    More about this item

    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:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00445-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.