WHO VALUES VALUE IN HEALTHCARE? A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW OF PATIENT ENGAGEMENT IN VALUE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORKS
Author(s)
Elena Faugno, MSW, MPH, Doctoral Candidate1, Davene Wright, BS, PhD2, Syed Afroz Keramat, BSc, MSc, PhD1, Kim Dalziel, BSc, MSc, PhD1.
1The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 2Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
1The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 2Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
OBJECTIVES: Value Assessment Frameworks (VAFs) are used to inform health technology (HT) decision making on individual, organizational, and societal levels. The patients affected by these HTs are most impacted by the decisions stemming from a VAF, yet a common critique of VAFs is that they lack patient-centeredness. This study aimed to investigate how existing VAFs define and measure value and the extent to which they include patients or the public in the design process.
METHODS: We updated an existing systematic review by Zhange et al. (2022) which identified 57 VAF to also capture recent VAFs, given the rapid evolution of HT assessment. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails, Embase, PubMed, and NIHR Center for Reviews and Dissemination from 2018 to 2025. For each included framework we extracted target users, intended use, included aspects of value, methods used to identify value attributes, and public or patient involvement. We then organized the VAFs according to micro (individual patient and doctor), meso (organizational level), macro (systemic and societal) levels of decision making. VAFs were then rated according to the level of patient engagement in the VAF design process along the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation.
RESULTS: Of the 8120 articles screened in the updated search, 38 VAFs were included and combined with the 57 VAFs previously identified for a total of 95. Ongoing analysis reveals few VAFs involve the public or patients during design.
CONCLUSIONS: Final results can inform stakeholders’ choice of VAF for maximizing patient engagement and future VAF development. Greater engagement with patients in VAF design will be important to support patient-centered health technology assessment.
METHODS: We updated an existing systematic review by Zhange et al. (2022) which identified 57 VAF to also capture recent VAFs, given the rapid evolution of HT assessment. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails, Embase, PubMed, and NIHR Center for Reviews and Dissemination from 2018 to 2025. For each included framework we extracted target users, intended use, included aspects of value, methods used to identify value attributes, and public or patient involvement. We then organized the VAFs according to micro (individual patient and doctor), meso (organizational level), macro (systemic and societal) levels of decision making. VAFs were then rated according to the level of patient engagement in the VAF design process along the IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation.
RESULTS: Of the 8120 articles screened in the updated search, 38 VAFs were included and combined with the 57 VAFs previously identified for a total of 95. Ongoing analysis reveals few VAFs involve the public or patients during design.
CONCLUSIONS: Final results can inform stakeholders’ choice of VAF for maximizing patient engagement and future VAF development. Greater engagement with patients in VAF design will be important to support patient-centered health technology assessment.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
PCR99
Topic
Health Technology Assessment, Patient-Centered Research, Study Approaches
Topic Subcategory
Patient Engagement
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas