Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T14:13:46.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVALUATION OF PATIENT INVOLVEMENT IN A HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2015

Mylène Tantchou Dipankui ,
Marie-Pierre Gagnon ,
Marie Desmartis ,
France Légaré ,
Florence Piron ,
Johanne Gagnon ,
Marc Rhiands  and
Martin Coulombe
Mylène Tantchou Dipankui
Affiliation:
Quebec University Hospital Research Centre
Marie-Pierre Gagnon
Affiliation:
Université Laval and Quebec University Hospital Research Centremarie-pierre.gagnon@fsi.ulaval.ca
Marie Desmartis
Affiliation:
Quebec University Hospital Research Centre
France Légaré
Affiliation:
Université Laval and Quebec University Hospital Research Centre
Florence Piron
Affiliation:
Université Laval
Johanne Gagnon
Affiliation:
Université Laval and Quebec University Hospital Research Centre
Marc Rhiands
Affiliation:
Quebec University Hospital
Martin Coulombe
Affiliation:
Quebec University Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: We sought to evaluate patient involvement (consultation and direct participation) in the assessment of alternative measures to restraint and seclusion among adults in short-term hospital wards (in psychiatry) and long-term care facilities for the elderly.

Methods: We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with thirteen stakeholders: caregivers, healthcare managers, patient representatives, health technology assessment (HTA) unit members, researchers, and members of the local HTA scientific committee. Data were collected until saturation. We carried out content analysis of two HTA reports and four other documents that were produced in relation with this HTA. We also used field notes taken during formal meetings and informal discussions with stakeholders. We performed thematic analysis based on a framework for assessing patient involvement in HTA. We then triangulated data.

Results: For the majority of interviewees, patient consultation enriched the content of the HTA report and its recommendations. This also made it possible to suggest other alternatives that could reduce the use of restraint and seclusion and helped confirm some views and comments from healthcare professionals consulted in this HTA. The direct participation of patient representatives enabled rephrasing of some findings so as to bring the patient perspective to the HTA report.

Conclusions: Patient consultation was seen as having directly influenced the content of the HTA report while direct participation made it possible to rephrase some findings. This is one of few studies to assess the impact of patient involvement in HTA and more such studies are needed to identify the best ways to improve the input of such involvement.

Keywords

EvaluationPatient participationPatient consultationHealth technology assessmentMental health
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , 2015 , pp. 166 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

REFERENCES

1. Kreis, J, Schmidt, H. Public engagement in health technology assessment and coverage decisions: A study of experiences in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2013;38:89–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Whitty, JA. An International Survey of the Public Engagement Practices of Health Technology Assessment Organizations. Value Health. 2013;16:155–163.Google Scholar
3. Abelson, J, Bombard, Y, Gauvin, FP, Simeonov, D, Boesveld, S. Assessing the impacts of citizen deliberations on the health technology process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:282–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Menon, D, Stafinski, T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:75–89.Google Scholar
5. Facey, K, Boivin, A, Gracia, J, et al. Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334–340.Google Scholar
6. Pivik, J, Rode, E, Ward, C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy. 2004;69:253–268.Google Scholar
7. Health Equality Europe. Understanding health technology assessment (HTA). Health Equality Europe; 2008.Google Scholar
8. British Medical Association. Patient and public involvement – A toolkit for doctors. London: BMA; 2011.Google Scholar
9. Segal, L. The importance of patient empowerment in health system reform. Health Policy. 1998;44:31–44.Google Scholar
10. Gagnon, M-P, Desmartis, M, Lepage-Savary, D, et al. Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:31–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. 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;27:391–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Crawford, MJ, Rutter, D, Manley, C, et al. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. BMJ. 2002;325:1263.Google Scholar
13. Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux. Vers un changement de pratique afin de réduire le recours à la contention et à l'isolement. Québec: Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux; 2008. FrenchGoogle Scholar
14. Dimant, J. Avoiding physical restraints in long-term care facilities. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2003;4:207–215.Google Scholar
15. Gagnon, MP, Desmartis, M, Dipankui, MT, Gagnon, J, St-Pierre, M. Alternatives to seclusion and restraint in psychiatry and in long-term care facilities for the elderly: Perspectives of service users and family members. Patient. 2013;6:269–280.Google Scholar
16. Gagnon, MP, Gagnon, J, St-Pierre, M, et al. Involving patients in HTA activities at local level: A study protocol based on the collaboration between researchers and knowledge users. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Unité d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'intervention en santé du CHU de Québec (UETMIS du CHU de Québec). Évaluation de la surveillance constante et des technologies d'aide à la surveillance comme mesures alternatives à la contention et à l'isolement chez des adultes hospitalisés ou en centres d'hébergement. Québec: CHU de Québec; 2012. FrenchGoogle Scholar
18. Unité d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'intervention en santé du CHU de Québec. Évaluation des pratiques, des barrières et des facilitateurs de l'implantation des mesures de remplacement de la contention et de l'isolement dans le RUIS de l'Université Laval. Québec: CHU de Québec; 2013. FrenchGoogle Scholar
19. Unité d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'intervention en santé du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (UETMIS du CHUQ). Évaluation des mesures alternatives à la contention et à l'isolement chez les patients adultes hospitalisés ou en centre d'hébergement. Québec: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec; 2010. FrenchGoogle Scholar
20. Huberman, MA, Miles, MB. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.Google Scholar
21. Hansen, HP, Lee, A, Van Randwijk, CB. Patient aspects: A review of fifty-eight Danish HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:330–336.Google Scholar
22. Tjornhoj-Thomsen, T, Hansen, HP. Knowledge in health technology assessment: Who, what, how? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:324–329.Google Scholar
23. Brennan, C. Case 9: Canadian Blood Services' stakeholder engagement for organ and tissue donation. In: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, ed. CIHR's Citizen Engagement in Health Casebook. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2012:57–60.Google Scholar
24. Boivin, A, Currie, K, Fervers, B, et al. Patient and public involvement in clinical guidelines: International experiences and future perspectives. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:e22.Google Scholar
25. Simpson, EL, House, AO. User and carer involvement in mental health services: From rhetoric to science. Br J Psychiatry. 2003;183:89–91.Google Scholar