IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v4y2011i1p1-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public and Patient Involvement at the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Author

Listed:
  • Leela Barham

Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is the arms-length National Health Service (NHS) agency that provides recommendations to the NHS in England and Wales on clinical practice and technologies that should or should not be used in the NHS. NICE aims to ensure that both the public and patients are included in their work and deliberations that lead to recommendations. This article provides an overview of the ways in which the public and patients can engage with NICE based upon a review of the NICE website and relevant literature. It finds that there are a range of both formal and informal mechanisms that provide an opportunity for the public and patients to be involved, but suggests that there are some improvements that could be made to improve transparency, and suggests further work to explore with the public and patients their views of how involvement should be undertaken. Lessons from the NICE experience are likely to be relevant to other countries that have or are adopting health technology assessment. Copyright Adis Data Information BV 2011

Suggested Citation

  • Leela Barham, 2011. "Public and Patient Involvement at the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:4:y:2011:i:1:p:1-10
    DOI: 10.2165/11586090-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11586090-000000000-00000
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11586090-000000000-00000?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. Milewa, Timothy, 2008. "Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 356-362, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Paula K. Lorgelly, 2021. "Patient and Public Involvement in Health Economics and Outcomes Research," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(4), pages 379-380, July.
    2. 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.
    3. Dmitry Khodyakov & Sean Grant & Brian Denger & Kathi Kinnett & Ann Martin & Holly Peay & Ian Coulter, 2020. "Practical Considerations in Using Online Modified-Delphi Approaches to Engage Patients and Other Stakeholders in Clinical Practice Guideline Development," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(1), pages 11-21, February.
    4. Sean Grant & Glen S. Hazlewood & Holly L. Peay & Ann Lucas & Ian Coulter & Arlene Fink & Dmitry Khodyakov, 2018. "Practical Considerations for Using Online Methods to Engage Patients in Guideline Development," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(2), pages 155-166, April.
    5. 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.

    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. Dale, Elina & Evans, David B. & Gopinathan, Unni & Kurowski, Christoph & Norheim, Ole F. & Ottersen, Trygve & Voorhoeve, Alex, 2023. "Open and inclusive: fair processes for financing universal health coverage," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119795, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Tom Tyler & Avital Mentovich & Sagarika Satyavada, 2014. "What motivates adherence to medical recommendations? The procedural justice approach to gaining deference in the medical arena," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 350-370, September.
    3. Brunton, Margaret & Jordan, Claire & Fouche, Christa, 2008. "Managing public health care policy: Who's being forgotten?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 348-358, December.

    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:4:y:2011:i:1:p:1-10. 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.