Integrating Patient Perspectives in HTA: What Can We Learn to Inform HTA-Focused Value Communications?
Author(s)
Francisco Olivenca, PhD, Anukriti Banerjee, MSc, Jasim Uddin, PhD.
Health Analytics, Lane Clark & Peacock LLP, London, United Kingdom.
Health Analytics, Lane Clark & Peacock LLP, London, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVES: Integration of patient perspectives in health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly recognised, but its extent and impact remain unclear. This work examined how HTA bodies incorporate patient input and whether it influences appraisal decisions, focusing on NICE appraisals as a case example.
METHODS: Publicly available HTA body guidance from 17 HTA bodies (restricted to guidance in English) was reviewed for reference to patient input and relevant methodologies. In addition, we also reviewed NICE single technology appraisals published between January 2024 and April 2025 (excluding those terminated or updated) to determine if and how patient input is captured across specific domains and therapy areas, with input scored on a 0-4 scale based on presence of input across 4 domains: unmet need, quality of life (QoL), caregiver/family impact and health equity.
RESULTS: All 17 HTA bodies reviewed mentioned patient input in their guidance but only 10 (58.8%) had specific patient engagement methodologies. Of 88 eligible NICE appraisals, 70 (79.6%) mentioned patient input, with 68/70 (97.1%) containing input considered by the committee. Patient contributions most often mentioned were unmet need (60/68) and QoL (42/68), while caregiver/family impact (19/68) and health equity (7/68) were less frequently highlighted. For technologies that were fully or partially recommended (62/68), the average patient input score was 1.87. Higher scores were noted in specific therapeutic areas: diabetes and endocrinal/metabolic (4 appraisals, average score 2); blood and immune system (24 appraisals, average score 1.96).
CONCLUSIONS: Specific methodologies on patient engagement were not identified for a considerable proportion of HTA bodies, indicating room for improvement in patient voice incorporation. Patient input was often included and considered in NICE appraisals, particularly from the perspective of unmet need and QoL. This suggests that capturing patient perspectives in product value proposition development may help optimally communicate value to HTA committees and support recommendations.
METHODS: Publicly available HTA body guidance from 17 HTA bodies (restricted to guidance in English) was reviewed for reference to patient input and relevant methodologies. In addition, we also reviewed NICE single technology appraisals published between January 2024 and April 2025 (excluding those terminated or updated) to determine if and how patient input is captured across specific domains and therapy areas, with input scored on a 0-4 scale based on presence of input across 4 domains: unmet need, quality of life (QoL), caregiver/family impact and health equity.
RESULTS: All 17 HTA bodies reviewed mentioned patient input in their guidance but only 10 (58.8%) had specific patient engagement methodologies. Of 88 eligible NICE appraisals, 70 (79.6%) mentioned patient input, with 68/70 (97.1%) containing input considered by the committee. Patient contributions most often mentioned were unmet need (60/68) and QoL (42/68), while caregiver/family impact (19/68) and health equity (7/68) were less frequently highlighted. For technologies that were fully or partially recommended (62/68), the average patient input score was 1.87. Higher scores were noted in specific therapeutic areas: diabetes and endocrinal/metabolic (4 appraisals, average score 2); blood and immune system (24 appraisals, average score 1.96).
CONCLUSIONS: Specific methodologies on patient engagement were not identified for a considerable proportion of HTA bodies, indicating room for improvement in patient voice incorporation. Patient input was often included and considered in NICE appraisals, particularly from the perspective of unmet need and QoL. This suggests that capturing patient perspectives in product value proposition development may help optimally communicate value to HTA committees and support recommendations.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
HTA206
Topic
Health Technology Assessment, Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Decision & Deliberative Processes
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas