Australian Health Review Australian Health Review Society
Journal of the Australian Healthcare & Hospitals Association
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Moving beyond the rhetoric of patient input in health technology assessment deliberations

Sally Wortley A E , Janet Wale B , David Grainger C and Peter Murphy D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.

B 11A Lydia Street, Brunswick, Vic. 3056, Australia. Email: socrates111@bigpond.com

C Eli Lilly and Company, 112 Wharf Road, Melrose Park, NSW 2114, Australia. Email: grainger_david@lilly.com

D Novartis, 54 Waterloo Road, Macquarie Park, Sydney, NSW 2113, Australia. Email: peter.murphy@novartis.com

E Corresponding author. Email: sally.wortley@sydney.edu.au

Australian Health Review 41(2) 170-172 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH15216
Submitted: 10 November 2015  Accepted: 1 April 2016   Published: 26 May 2016

Abstract

At a health system level, the importance of patient and public input into healthcare decision making is well recognised. Patient and public involvement not only provides a mechanism to legitimise decisions, but also contributes to improved translation of these decisions into practice, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes. Recent reviews in the health technology assessment space have identified the need for, and increased use of, patient input through systematic methodologies. Yet, what does this mean in practical terms? This paper outlines both short- and longer-term options for strengthening patient input into health technology assessment deliberations. This is particularly important given the planned reforms in this area and the commitment to public consultation as part of the reform process.


References

[1]  Banta D. What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25 7–9.
What is technology assessment?CrossRef | 19519979PubMed | open url image1

[2]  Community Affairs Reference Committee. Availability of new, innovative and specialist cancer drugs in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2015. Available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Cancer_Drugs/Report [verified 13 October 2015].

[3]  Lopes E, Street J, Carter D, Merlin T. Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia. Health Expect 2016; 19 331–44.
Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia.CrossRef | 25703958PubMed | open url image1

[4]  Hailey D, Werko S, Bakri R, Cameron A, Gohlen B, Myles S, Pwu J, Yothasamut J, for the INAHTA Working Group on Impact of HTA Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by INAHTA agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013; 29 79–83.
Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by INAHTA agencies.CrossRef | 23217279PubMed | open url image1

[5]  Productivity Commission. Efficiency in health. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2015. Available at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/hta/publishing.nsf/Content/hta-1 [verified 13 October 2015].

[6]  Department of Health and Ageing. Review of health technology assessment in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009. Available at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/hta/publishing.nsf/Content/hta-1 [verified 13 October 2015].



Export Citation Cited By (2)

View Altmetrics