Patient Engagement in Economic Evaluations of Cancer Care: Mapping the Landscape and Advancing Practice
Author(s)
Kednapa Thavorn, PhD1, Emily Thompson, MSc2, Cacy Tran, BSc3, Brian Hutton, MSc, PhD4, Justin Presseau, PhD3.
1Senior Scientist, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, QC, Canada, 3Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 4Ottawa Hospital and McGill University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
1Senior Scientist, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, QC, Canada, 3Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 4Ottawa Hospital and McGill University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
OBJECTIVES: While patient engagement is increasingly recognized in health technology assessment, its integration into economic evaluations remains rare and underdeveloped. This study aimed to (1) examine how patients are currently engaged in economic evaluations of cancer care, (2) identify key barriers and facilitators, and (3) develop practical recommendations to support more meaningful engagement.
METHODS: We conducted a multi-method study, which included a scoping review, a survey, and qualitative interviews. The review covered economic evaluations of cancer care published between 2013-2022 in 32 leading journals spanning oncology, health economics, and patient engagement. Eligible studies involved individuals affected by cancer at any stage of the evaluation. Authors of included studies were invited to complete a survey and participate in interviews. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize findings.
RESULTS: The review identified few studies reporting patient engagement, and involvement was typically limited to reviewing lay summaries or manuscripts. Only a small number engaged patients in shaping model structure or identifying relevant outcomes. Among 21 survey respondents, key barriers included uncertainty about the value of engagement, lack of training, and perceived lack of relevance. Early qualitative interviews showed widespread interest in engagement but highlighted three main challenges: uncertainty about how engagement influences analysis, limited practical guidance, and lack of financial support. Patient partners co-led all phases of this study, from design through interpretation.
CONCLUSIONS: Although interest in engaging patients in economic evaluations is growing, activity remains limited and under-supported. Advancing this work will require co-developed guidance, targeted training for researchers and patients, and sustained funding. Insights from this study are informing a Delphi consensus process to develop practical recommendations for integrating patient engagement across the economic evaluation process.
METHODS: We conducted a multi-method study, which included a scoping review, a survey, and qualitative interviews. The review covered economic evaluations of cancer care published between 2013-2022 in 32 leading journals spanning oncology, health economics, and patient engagement. Eligible studies involved individuals affected by cancer at any stage of the evaluation. Authors of included studies were invited to complete a survey and participate in interviews. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize findings.
RESULTS: The review identified few studies reporting patient engagement, and involvement was typically limited to reviewing lay summaries or manuscripts. Only a small number engaged patients in shaping model structure or identifying relevant outcomes. Among 21 survey respondents, key barriers included uncertainty about the value of engagement, lack of training, and perceived lack of relevance. Early qualitative interviews showed widespread interest in engagement but highlighted three main challenges: uncertainty about how engagement influences analysis, limited practical guidance, and lack of financial support. Patient partners co-led all phases of this study, from design through interpretation.
CONCLUSIONS: Although interest in engaging patients in economic evaluations is growing, activity remains limited and under-supported. Advancing this work will require co-developed guidance, targeted training for researchers and patients, and sustained funding. Insights from this study are informing a Delphi consensus process to develop practical recommendations for integrating patient engagement across the economic evaluation process.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
P64
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Health Technology Assessment, Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient Engagement
Disease
Oncology