Mind the Gap: Divergent Perceptions of Patient Engagement Value in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Among Healthcare Providers and Patient Advocacy Groups in Israel
Author(s)
TAL MORGINSTIN, B.Pharm, M.Sc., Ph.D, Dan Greenberg, BA, MSc, PhD, Segev Shani, B. Pharm, MHA, MBA, LLB, LLM, Ph.D.
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
OBJECTIVES: Patient engagement (PE) in HTA and resource allocation has become a standard practice in many countries; however, its implementation in Israel remains limited. To strengthen these processes locally, it is crucial to understand how both healthcare providers (HCPs) and patient advocacy groups (PAGs) perceive the role and contribution of PE. This study aimed to explore and compare their views on PE within the Israeli HTA and resource allocation context.
METHODS: Quantitative data were collected through online surveys from 362 participants, including 161 PAGs and 201 HCPs (medical and nursing staff). Participants rated the value of 14 potential benefits of PE in HTA using a 5-point Likert scale (1="strongly disagree" to 5="very strongly agree"). The benefits examined were categorized into four conceptual domains: process-related, patient-centered knowledge, disease and treatment impact and HTA methodology improvements.
RESULTS: PAGs attributed high value to all potential benefits, with six receiving agreement rates of 90% or higher (respondents answering "strongly agree" or "very strongly agree"). Key areas valued included examining real-world treatment effects, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) aspects not captured by traditional metrics, and comprehensive disease impact on patients and families, including functional, social, and economic implications. HCPs adopted a more selective approach, with only four benefits exceeding 70% agreement: understanding HRQoL aspects, mapping barriers to care, and understanding disease impact on patients and families.
CONCLUSIONS: PAGs perceive significant value across various aspects of PE, while HCPs primarily identify value in aspects related to HRQoL and barriers to care. We recommend developing a methodological framework for the systematic integration of patient perspectives in HTA, implementing training programs for HCPs to understand the value of PE, and establishing platforms for structured dialogue between HCPs and patients. Integrating different perspectives may better align prioritization with patient needs.
METHODS: Quantitative data were collected through online surveys from 362 participants, including 161 PAGs and 201 HCPs (medical and nursing staff). Participants rated the value of 14 potential benefits of PE in HTA using a 5-point Likert scale (1="strongly disagree" to 5="very strongly agree"). The benefits examined were categorized into four conceptual domains: process-related, patient-centered knowledge, disease and treatment impact and HTA methodology improvements.
RESULTS: PAGs attributed high value to all potential benefits, with six receiving agreement rates of 90% or higher (respondents answering "strongly agree" or "very strongly agree"). Key areas valued included examining real-world treatment effects, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) aspects not captured by traditional metrics, and comprehensive disease impact on patients and families, including functional, social, and economic implications. HCPs adopted a more selective approach, with only four benefits exceeding 70% agreement: understanding HRQoL aspects, mapping barriers to care, and understanding disease impact on patients and families.
CONCLUSIONS: PAGs perceive significant value across various aspects of PE, while HCPs primarily identify value in aspects related to HRQoL and barriers to care. We recommend developing a methodological framework for the systematic integration of patient perspectives in HTA, implementing training programs for HCPs to understand the value of PE, and establishing platforms for structured dialogue between HCPs and patients. Integrating different perspectives may better align prioritization with patient needs.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
HTA234
Topic
Health Policy & Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment, Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Decision & Deliberative Processes
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas