Neil Bertelsen’s research while affiliated with Lofarma Germany and other places

Background There are wide variations in the practices of patient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) in Europe. The field is lacking a consensus on good practices, leading to divergent processes, methods, and evaluation of patient involvement. To identify potential good practice approaches and current gaps, a structured online survey was conducted among HTA stakeholders, including HTA practitioners, patient stakeholders, industry representatives, and others who had experienced patient involvement in HTA. Methods The questionnaire was co-created by HTA experts, patient stakeholders, and industry representatives and disseminated between 29 April and 14 September 2022. Results Responses (n = 168) were submitted from thirty-two European countries by HTA practitioners (n = 33), patient stakeholders (n = 75), industry stakeholders (n = 42), providers (n = 5), academics (n = 7), and others (n = 6). The responses indicated that “ allowing access to treatments that have demonstrated value” is the principle rationale for conducting HTA. In terms of the importance of patient involvement, there was consensus across stakeholder groups that “ patients have insights and information [that] no other stakeholder has ” and that patient involvement is important “ to inform HTA which evidence is most patient-relevant ”. Shortcomings were identified in the lack of systematic and transparent processes, an unsatisfactory level of information and guidance, and minimal communication and collaboration. Conclusions The diverse stakeholders who responded highlighted the need for improving specific aspects of patient involvement practices, including better guidance and information, a more consistent flow of communication between the HTA body and participating patient stakeholders, and the need to develop and implement a consensus on good practices.

Background Working with patients through meaningful patient engagement (PE) and incorporating patient experience data (PXD) is increasingly important in medicines and medical device development. However, PE in the planning, organization, generation, and interpretation of PXD within regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making processes remains challenging. We conducted a global review of the PE and PXD landscape to identify evolving resources by geography to support and highlight the potential of integration of PE and PXD in regulatory assessment and HTA. Methods A review of literature/public information was conducted (August 2021–January 2023), led by a multistakeholder group comprising those with lived or professional experience of PE and PXD, to identify relevant regulatory and HTA initiatives and resources reviewed and categorized by geography and focus area. Results Overall, 53 relevant initiatives/resources were identified (global, 14; North America, 11; Europe, 11; Asia, nine; UK, six; Latin America, one; Africa, one). Most focused either on PE (49%) or PXD (28%); few (11%) mentioned both PE and PXD (as largely separate activities) or demonstrated an integration of PE and PXD (11%). Conclusions Our analysis demonstrates increasing interest in PE, PXD, and guidance on their use individually in decision-making. However, more work is needed to offer guidance on maximizing the value of patient input into decisions by combining both PE and PXD into regulatory and HTA processes; the necessity of integrating PE in the design and interpretation of PXD programs should be highlighted. A co-created framework to achieve this integration is part of a future project.

Patients’ experiences of their diagnosis, condition, and treatment (including the impact on their lives), and their experiences surrounding expectations of care, are becoming increasingly important in shaping healthcare systems that meet the evolving needs and priorities of different patient communities over time; this is an ongoing goal of all healthcare stakeholders. Current approaches that capture patient experiences with data are fragmented, resulting in duplication of effort, numerous requests for information, and increased patient burden. Application of patient experience data to inform healthcare decisions is still emerging and there remains an opportunity to align diverse stakeholders on the value of these data to strengthen healthcare systems. Given the collective value of understanding patient experiences across multiple stakeholder groups, we propose a more aligned approach to the collection of patient experience data. This approach is built on the principle that the patients’ experiences are the starting point, and not just something to be considered at the end of the process. It must also be based on meaningful patient engagement, where patients are collaborators and decision makers at each step, thereby ensuring their needs and priorities are accurately reflected. The resulting data and evidence should be made available for all stakeholders, to inform their decision making and healthcare strategies in ways that meet patient priorities. We call for multi-stakeholder collaboration that will deliver healthcare systems and interventions that are better centered around and tailored to patient experiences, and that will help address patients’ unmet needs.

Background There is increased recognition that incorporating patients’ perspectives and insights into the medicines development process results in better health outcomes and benefits for all involved stakeholders. Despite the increased interest and the existence of frameworks and practical recommendations, patient engagement (PE) is not yet considered standard practice. The objective of this work was to provide a roadmap to support systematic change in all stakeholder organisations involved in medicines development across Europe, patients and patient organisations, medicines developers, academia, regulatory authorities, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, policy-makers and public research funders, to sustain PE practices. Methods A mixed-methods approach was used by the EU-funded Innovative Medicines Initiative PARADIGM Consortium to co-develop the sustainability roadmap including background work to identify success factors and scenarios for sustainable PE. The roadmap development was based on the Theory of Change concept and populated with findings from (1) interviews with national/ and international institutions with the potential to increase PE uptake by other stakeholders; (2) multi-stakeholder workshops and webinars; and (3) consultations with specific stakeholder groups, Consortium members and a consultative body formed by international PE initiatives. Results This roadmap sets strategic goals for the PE community to achieve meaningful and systematic PE through changes in the culture, processes and resources of stakeholder organisations. It brings in key PARADIGM outputs to work in a coordinated fashion with existing frameworks and mechanisms to achieve system-wide sustained PE. Conclusions The roadmap provides a framework for all stakeholders to take collective action within their organisations and across Europe to implement PE in a sustainable manner.

Much attention in health technology assessment (HTA), a health system governance mechanism used for determining the value of health technologies, has turned towards improving the quality and patient-relevance of the evidence provided to the assessment bodies. Whilst the direct involvement of patient actors throughout HTA processes has become a more routine element of institutional practice, the ‘impacts’ of patient engagement (PE) initiatives have proven difficult to determine and enhance. In reflexive governance theories, reflexive learning is a critical mechanism of multi-stakeholder arrangements that better handles the complexities of technologies and how they are understood through governance practices. This paper explores how reflexive learning can be used to build a richer conceptualisation of PE in HTA, in order to generate suggestions for enhancing PE practices and their impact. We critically apply reflexive learning insights on qualitative data derived from the co-creation process of a PE evaluation framework, organised through an EU project focused on strengthening PE practices across medicines development (2018-2020), including 24 interactive case studies, 3 multi-stakeholder workshops, and our observations throughout the project. The findings characterise two dimensions of reflexive learning in PE: First, reflexive learning refers to the adaptive reorganisation of evidence generating practices, including the revision of medicines’ evaluation criteria and the conditions under which evidence ‘relevant’ to HTA is constructed. Second, reflexive learning spotlights the sociopolitics which shape technology evaluation. Four themes affecting meaningful and sustained PE in medicines development were analysed: institutional boundaries due to established evaluation criteria; timing of engagements; network relations between institutional actors; and the politics of patient representation. Extending beyond discrete PE activities and their reported impacts, reflexive forms of learning are crucial to yielding more ‘meaningful’ PE for HTA and medicines development, facilitating a HTA practice that more meaningfully deals with the complexities of medicines evidence generation.

Background The holistic evolution of patient engagement in medicines development requires a more detailed understanding of the needs of all involved stakeholders, and one that better accounts for the specific needs of some potentially vulnerable patient populations and key stages in medicines development. Objective The purpose of this convergent mixed‐methods study was to better understand the needs of different stakeholders concerning patient engagement at three key stages in medicines development: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with Health Technology Assessment bodies and regulators. Design This study brought together findings from three sources: i) an online questionnaire, ii) face‐to‐face consultations with two potentially vulnerable patient populations, a workshop with Health Technology Assessment bodies, and iii) three‐step modified Delphi methodology. Results Overall stakeholders still need additional varied support mechanisms to undertake, sustain or measure value of patient engagement. Health Technology Assessment bodies need better rationale for patient engagement in early dialogue and tools to support its implementation. Improved awareness and understanding of the need and value that involving patients, who are often considered as potentially vulnerable, can bring is needed, as is better accommodation of their specific needs. Similarly, weighted Delphi categories were as follows: aims and objectives, and sustainability. Several additional themes were common across the three key stages in medicines development. Conclusion This broad‐reaching study provides the blocks needed to build a framework for patient engagement in medicines development. Patient or Public Contribution Patients were involved in review and interpretation of data.

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are meant to inform health policy by taking account of all the potential impacts of using a health technology. In the 1990s, HTAs included rigorous research to produce patient-based evidence, and some supported participation of patient representatives to help focus HTA research and determine value. In the 2000s, HTAs became more closely linked to reimbursement decisions, focusing on clinical and cost effectiveness. Patient involvement should be tailored to the specific needs of each HTA. As the timeframe for HTAs has reduced, research to produce patient-based evidence has been replaced by input from patient groups. This places a burden on individuals and organizations that needs to be critically reviewed. Therefore, it is imperative that we clarify when patient involvement is likely to add value and support patients to provide their unique knowledge in the most optimal way to influence HTA decision making. To reduce the burden on patient groups, more must be done to encourage research to produce patient-based evidence early in technology development. Like clinical research, a programme of research should be carefully planned, with appropriate methodological rigor for each study, and all research should be published. For this, the development of quality standards for research to produce patient-based evidence may be needed. Patient involvement has inherent value. It should be focused, systematic and transparent, and evolve according to the experiences of all stakeholders. All countries or collaboratives that undertake HTA should consider how they can elicit the needs, preferences and experiences of patients to support creation of patient-centered healthcare policy.

Background Meaningful patient engagement (PE) in medicines development and during the life cycle of a product requires all stakeholders have a clear understanding of respective expectations. Objective A qualitative survey was undertaken to understand stakeholder expectations. Design The survey explored 4 themes from the perspective of each stakeholder group: meaning, views, expectations and priorities for PE. Participants were grouped into 7 categories: policymakers/regulators; health‐care professionals (HCPs); research funders; payers/purchasers/HTA; patients/patient representatives; pharmaceutical/life sciences industry; and academic researchers. Results Fifty‐nine interviews were conducted across a range of geographies, PE experience and job seniority/role. There was consensus across stakeholders on meaning of PE; importance of promoting PE to a higher level than currently; need for a more structured process and guidance. There was little consensus on stakeholder expectations and roles. Policymakers/regulators were expected by others to drive PE, create a framework and facilitate PE, provide guidelines of good practice and connect stakeholders, but this expectation was not shared by the policymakers/regulators group. HCPs were seen as the link between patients and other stakeholders, but HCPs did not necessarily share this view. Discussion and conclusions Despite broad stakeholder categories, clear themes emerged: there is no “leader”; no stakeholder has a clear view on how to meaningfully engage with patients; there are educational gaps; and a structure and guidance for PE is urgently required. Given the diversity of stakeholders, there needs to be multistakeholder collaborative leadership. Effective collaboration requires consensus on roles, responsibilities and expectations to synergize efforts to deliver meaningful PE in medicines life cycle.