Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-sk4tg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T14:58:01.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ethical Challenges Related to Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2019

Meredith Vanstone*
Affiliation:
Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton OntarioCanada McMaster FHS Program for Education Research, Innovation, and Theory, McMaster University, Hamilton OntarioCanada Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton OntarioCanada
Julia Abelson
Affiliation:
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton OntarioCanada Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton OntarioCanada
Julia Bidonde
Affiliation:
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton OntarioCanada Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa OntarioCanada Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Division of Health Services Oslo, Norway
Kenneth Bond
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics (IHE), Edmonton AlbertaCanada
Raquel Burgess
Affiliation:
Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton OntarioCanada
Carolyn Canfield
Affiliation:
Independent citizen-patient Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver British ColumbiaCanada
Lisa Schwartz
Affiliation:
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton OntarioCanada Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton OntarioCanada
Laura Tripp
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton OntarioCanada
*
Author for correspondence: Meredith Vanstone, meredith.vanstone@mcmaster.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Including information and values from patients in HTA has the potential to improve both the process and outcomes of health technology policy decisions. Accordingly, funding and structural incentives to include patients in HTA activities have increased over the past several years. Unfortunately, these incentives have not yet been accompanied by a corresponding increase in resources, time, or commitment to responsiveness. In this Perspectives piece, we reflect on our collective experiences participating in, conducting, and overseeing patient engagement activities within HTA to highlight the ethical challenges associated with this area of activity. While we remain committed to the idea that patient engagement activities strengthen the findings, relevance, and legitimacy of health technology policy, we are deeply concerned about the potential for these activities to do ethical harm. We use this analysis to call for action to introduce strong protections against ethical violations that may harm patients participating in HTA engagement activities.

Type
Perspective
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Engaging patients in health technology assessment (HTA) may enrich health policy decisions by strengthening the legitimacy and efficacy of this process (Reference Abelson, Wagner and DeJean1). Recent years have seen a rise in funding and structural incentives to include patients in HTA, reflecting growing recognition of the importance of ensuring that policy decisions are relevant to consumers. As more agencies strive to involve patients, the rush to inclusion may create an environment where thoughtful engagement is reduced to check-box forms of involvement that approach tokenism (Reference Ocloo and Matthews2). This is not always intentional, and we acknowledge the significant efforts of many agencies to meaningfully involve patients. However, the current focus on methods and processes sometimes overlooks the ethical issues inherent in involving patients, or fails to acknowledge the vulnerability of patients and the potential for harm in HTA participation.

In this Perspectives article, we highlight three ethical challenges related to patient involvement in HTA. We do this by using ethical theories to critically reflect on our own experiences as patients, researchers, patient engagement facilitators, ethicists, and staff at agencies in Canada, Norway, and transnational HTA organizations. While we recognize that there are many ways of involving patients in HTA, we focus on the forms of involvement that directly solicit new information from patients to inform decisions made by expert committees and agency personnel throughout the full HTA process (Reference Abelson, Wagner and DeJean1). This form of involvement is distinct from evidence created by gathering or synthesizing information collected from patients outside of the HTA process (Reference Staniszewska, Werko, Facey, Ploug Hansen and Single3).

Three Ethical Challenges of Patient Involvement

Recognizing and Re-balancing Risk and Benefit for All HTA Participants

Many patient involvement activities increasingly resemble research, and expose patient participants to similar potential harms. For example, we have observed a growing pressure to conduct more numerous and more detailed interviews with patients. Patient interviewees are typically limited to describing their experiences in response to prepared questions, and may not have the opportunity to direct the conversation to topics they deem relevant to the policy decision, such as the trade-off between cost and improvement in quality of life. Patient-contributed information is analyzed cumulatively and presented in a written report, mediated through the perspective and priorities of the analysts and report authors. Dissenting views may or may not be included. As the report is discussed, patient participants have little opportunity to respond, react and offer an alternative vision.

This form of patient involvement is qualitatively different from the way other experts are engaged, and very closely resembles research participation. Research has a rich history of ethical theory guiding the recognition and re-balancing of cost and benefit. These ethical principles can guide patient involvement in HTA, under the principle that we should work to “do good” throughout the entire process of the HTA and not only at its conclusion (Reference Bogolub4). This means that we must strive to maximize benefit and minimize harm to patient participants throughout their involvement. “Doing good” is more than just “not doing bad.” It means not remaining complacent that, if the HTA is done well, the resulting policy decisions will benefit patients and society, but striving to create benefit to the participants of the HTA regardless of the outcome of the assessment.

This could be facilitated through the adoption of the principle of patient empowerment as an aim of patient involvement (2;5), which requires consideration of the principles of self-determination, autonomy, responsiveness, and ensuring the “voice” of participants is at the forefront (Reference Pittaway, Bartolomei and Hugman6). It means using the principle of respect for autonomy to create strong structures to facilitate the collection of continuous informed consent to participate (7). As we strive not to do harm, we should consider the concept of therapeutic misconception, that is, whether a patient has chosen to participate because she assumes that the results of participating will directly benefit her. This is especially important when engaging patients who use the drug or device being assessed. At a minimum, we should strive to ensure that participation in patient engagement activities does not cause physical, emotional, spiritual, or economic harm that outweighs the benefits of participating. Ideally, we should identify some additional benefit to patients, whether that is opportunity for capacity-building, learning, or system change.

Selecting and Engaging Patient Participants in an Ethical Way

There are two related parts to this challenge. First, there are many barriers to patient participation in HTA, meaning that only the most strongly motivated are likely to participate (Reference Fung8). Second, when only the most strongly motivated participate, ethical issues related to coercion and selection bias are introduced.

Barriers to patient participation in policy decision-making activities have been well-documented (9;10). Barriers include activities which take place during working hours, absent or limited remuneration for time (Reference Shah and Robinson11), as well as a requirement to interpret and respond to complex information (9;12). Other barriers include significant power differentials between patients and other participants (Reference Lopes, Carter and Street13), and the request to disclose potentially personal information to an audience who is not reciprocating with assistance, or similar levels of disclosure or vulnerability (Reference Shah and Robinson11). Considering these barriers, it is not surprising that most HTA patient participants tend to be of higher socio-economic status than the general population. By ignoring barriers to participation, we risk excluding all but the most motivated from the knowledge-sharing process (Reference Fricker14).

What inspires some patients to overcome these barriers, to give up their time and energy, and to assume the costs and risks inherent to participation? Research indicates that patients may be motivated to acquire meaningful social roles, overcome stigma, improve the health system, and achieve social justice for others (Reference de Freitas15). Beyond these reasons, we have met participants who are motivated by the unresolved tensions they carry from previous harm experienced within the healthcare system, and those who participate because they wish to access the technology being assessed. We have met patients who participate at their own cost and others who receive support from industry. All of these reasons for participation may motivate particular behaviours from the individual, prompting fear that bias or coercion may influence the information that person provides.

Instead of ignoring or aiming to eliminate bias, we re-conceptualize this issue, believing that the value of patient involvement lies in the unique experience and perspective each person brings (16;17). Indeed, we are asking for patient participation because of, not despite their personal experience. To do this, we must find ways to recognize the value of the variations in experience and perspective and incorporate these variations to support the production of a rich and useful HTA process. The approach of valuing the diversity of lived experience rather than seeking to minimize bias conflicts with the approach taken in areas of the HTA which rely on epidemiological methods and “objective” data (Reference Facey, Boivin and Gracia16). Others have suggested that each individual should carefully manage and support the overlap between their private preferences (self-interest) and understanding of what serves the wider public good (Reference Williamson18).

One strategy for achieving this is to borrow the concept of reflexivity from qualitative research (Reference Koch and Harrington19). Reflexivity is a way to identify, interrogate, and communicate the influence of personal perspective on qualitative research decision making. A reflexive conversation would be useful in HTA at the time of recruitment to check the fit between the person and the activity. Each participant would be informed of the nature and objectives of the activity and asked to reflect on their motivation to contribute, the perspectives they hope to convey during the activity, and the expectations they have for their involvement in the activity and its outcomes. This would not be a one-way conversation; the HTA team would also share their experience, goals, and conflicts relevant to the proposed activities. This conversation could be used to adapt or refine the activity to allow more transparent and effective patient engagement, and be included in analysis and reporting to improve the transparency of the results.

Increasing the accessibility and appeal of HTA activities may help ameliorate barriers to participation and the potential for selection bias and coercion when only the most motivated participate. Actions to reduce barriers to participation include: meaningful remuneration, activities outside of normal working hours, and attention to the physical and mental needs of people who may be sick, in pain, or living with functional limitations (Reference Robillard and Feng20). Constructing activities that do not require high levels of education or verbal eloquence, and those which feel emotionally and psychologically safer will increase accessibility. These actions follow the guiding principles of empowering patients to contribute by respecting and valuing their contributions, creating structures that mitigate potential risks, and ensuring transparency through the accessibility of information.

Decreasing the Influence of Power and Information Differentials between Patients and Other HTA Members

There are ethical issues stemming from the different types of information patients and other participants bring to an HTA collaboration and the resulting influence that information has within the assessment and decision-making process. For example, some participants bring clinical or economic research evidence to an HTA, whereas patients often bring information about their lived experience with the technology and health conditions. Differences in how this information is valued can contribute to power differentials between patients and other HTA participants, with the potential to undermine the contributions of patients.

Ethical patient involvement should consider how the HTA process will be responsive to the information provided by patients when it contradicts the outcomes suggested by economic and clinical evidence. In our experience, it is an enduring challenge for committees, decision makers, and researchers to compare and prioritize discrepant messages from clinical, economic, and lived experience information. The challenge of a holistic review of information is at the heart of the HTA endeavour, but all too often we have witnessed committees comment that, while the lived experience information is compelling, they must make their decisions based on the clinical or economic evidence. This can be upsetting to patients, who may feel superfluous and betrayed at the previous messages of how important their contributions are (21;22). They may wonder if the decision makers ever intended to take their testimony and evidence into account, or whether they are merely being used for their “patient status” rather than their insight (Reference Johannesen22).

If we are committed to ethical patient involvement, we must be responsive to the information provided by patients. Like other forms of evidence (including synthesized evidence from qualitative studies of patient values and experiences), information gathered through patient involvement activities should be considered essential and authoritative. Lived experience knowledge should not be privileged over other forms of evidence, but it should be equally considered. Hermeneutical marginalization, a type of epistemic injustice, occurs when interpretive resources are organized in a way that privileges one type of knowledge over another, or silences certain groups of people (Reference Medina23). It is disheartening but not surprising that evidence from the direct involvement of patients does not often compete with clinical or economic evidence produced, synthesized, reported, and interpreted by people who are deeply embedded in a particular evidentiary system. Dismantling the information differentials requires divergent forms of information to be presented in a way that is understandable and open to critique and response from all participants. This may mean translation of the findings from all HTA reports into plain language, so that those without specialized expertise may critique the assumptions or results of each report.

Conclusion

Patient involvement in HTA can strengthen the findings, relevance, and legitimacy of health technology policy, but it may also do ethical harm. In this analysis, we draw on our collective experience participating in patient engagement to call for the introduction of strong protections against ethical violations that harm patients participating in any phase of an HTA. We identified three broad concerns about fairness in risks and benefits, justice in diversity, and accessibility and reducing power differences, reflecting these concerns against ethical theory to suggest tenets that could govern improved conduct of patient engagement activities. If patients are involved more meaningfully in HTA, we should move closer to truly useful HTA products that reflect the context in which the technologies or drugs will be used. This commentary is a starting point, providing only a partial description of the potential ethical issues in this area. Our main objective is to draw attention to the gravity of this issue as demonstrated by our collective Canadian and international experiences in HTA.

Raising awareness is only the first step to improving practices of patient engagement within our community. Robillard and Feng (Reference Robillard and Feng20) suggest that, in keeping with the spirit of partnership and collaboration that informs patient involvement, policies and deliberation about the ethics of involving patients should incorporate the needs, perspectives, and wishes of the community (Reference Robillard and Feng20). All stakeholders (researchers, agencies, and patients) should be involved in the development of guidelines and formal structures that ensure patient involvement within HTA is conducted in a way which minimizes harm. These guidelines are emerging, from organizations such as the European Patients Academy (Reference Hunter, Facey and Thomas24). Support from the HTA community for the development and uptake of this work is essential to ensure that future patient involvement activities have stronger potential for benefit than harm.

Author ORCIDs

Meredith Vanstone, 0000-0002-7347-6259

Conflicts of interest

L.S. discloses that she was a member of an expert review panel for a national HTA organization (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health) which provided honorarium and travel costs for meetings, under $10,000/year. M.V. discloses that she has received research funding from a national HTA agency (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health) to complete syntheses of primary research on patient perspectives. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Footnotes

We acknowledge the many contributions to our analysis that were prompted by conversations with patients, HTA agencies, policy makers, and research colleagues. Salaries for M.V., R.B., and L.T. are supported by funding from the Government of Ontario and the Ontario SPOR Support Unit, which is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Government of Ontario (J.A., M.V., no grant number). At the time the work was completed, J.B. was a Health Systems Impact Fellow, supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (J.A., M.V., L.S., K.B.).

References

1.Abelson, J, Wagner, F, DeJean, D, et al. (2016) Public and patient involvement in health technology assessment: A framework for action. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 32, 256264.Google Scholar
2.Ocloo, J, Matthews, R (2016) From tokenism to empowerment: Progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf 25, 626632.Google Scholar
3.Staniszewska, S, Werko, S (2017) Patient-based evidence in HTA. In: Facey, K, Ploug Hansen, H, Single, A, eds. Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment. Singapore: Adis, Springer Nature; p. 4351.Google Scholar
4.Bogolub, E (2010) The obligation to bring about good in social work research: A new perspective. Qual Soc Work 9, 915.Google Scholar
5.Bridges, JF, Jones, C (2007) Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23, 3035.Google Scholar
6.Pittaway, E, Bartolomei, L, Hugman, R (2010) ‘Stop stealing our stories’: The ethics of research with vulnerable groups. J Hum Rights Pract 2, 229251.Google Scholar
7.CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC (2014) Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct For Research Involving Humans. Canada Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research 2014. http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/index/.Google Scholar
8.Fung, A (2015) Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Adm Rev 75, 513–22.Google Scholar
9.Gagnon, M-P, Desmartis, M, Lepage-Savary, D, et al. (2011) Introducing patients’ and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 27, 3142.Google Scholar
10.Domecq, JP, Prutsky, G, Elraiyah, T, et al. (2014) Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 14, 89.Google Scholar
11.Shah, SGS, Robinson, I (2007) Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23, 131137.Google Scholar
12.Joseph-Williams, N, Elwyn, G, Edwards, A (2014) Knowledge is not power for patients: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns 94, 291309.Google Scholar
13.Lopes, E, Carter, D, Street, J (2015) Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia. Soc Sci Med 135, 8491.Google Scholar
14.Fricker, M (1999) Epistemic oppression and epistemic privilege. Can J Philos 29(Supp1), 191210.Google Scholar
15.de Freitas, C (2015) Aiming for inclusion: A case study of motivations for involvement in mental health-care governance by ethnic minority users. Health Expect 18, 10931104.Google Scholar
16.Facey, K, Boivin, A, Gracia, J, et al. (2010) Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26, 334340.Google Scholar
17.Bowman-Busato, J (2011) Patient engagement in health technology assessment (HTA). Pharm Policy Law 13, 193201.Google Scholar
18.Williamson, L (2014) Patient and citizen participation in health: The need for improved ethical support. Am J Bioeth 14, 416.Google Scholar
19.Koch, T, Harrington, A (1998) Reconceptualizing rigour: The case for reflexivity. J Adv Nurs 28, 882890.Google Scholar
20.Robillard, JM, Feng, TL (2017) When patient engagement and research ethics collide: Lessons from a dementia forum. J Alzheimers Dis 59, 110.Google Scholar
21.Van de Bovenkamp, HM, Trappenburg, MJ, Grit, KJ (2010) Patient participation in collective healthcare decision making: The Dutch model. Health Expect 13, 7385.Google Scholar
22.Johannesen, J (2018) Patient Views on “Ladders of Engagement”. Toronto: Ontario SPOR Support Unit.Google Scholar
23.Medina, J (2017) Varieties of Hermeneutical Injustice 1. The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Injustice. Abington, UK: Routledge; 2017. p. 4152.Google Scholar
24.Hunter, A, Facey, K, Thomas, V, et al. (2018) EUPATI guidance for patient involvement in medicines research and development: Health technology assessment. Front Med (Lausanne) 5, 231.Google Scholar