Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes – Learning by Doing. Comment on “Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe”
Files
Publication or External Link
Date
Authors
Advisor
Citation
DRUM DOI
Abstract
The article by Oortwijn, Jansen, and Baltussen (OJB) is much more important than it appears because, in the absence of any good general theory of “evidence-informed deliberative processes” (EDP) and limited evidence of how they might be shaped and work in institutionalising health technology assessment (HTA), the best approach seems to be to accumulate the experience of a variety of countries, preferably systematically, from which some general principles might subsequently be inferred. This comment reinforces their arguments and provides a further example.
Notes
It was determined that the process of technology appraisal was to be open, multi-disciplinary, multiprofessional and multi-institutional, and it would have “lay” participation. It was heavily dependent upon people’s willingness to serve pro bono. It was plain from the outset that very large numbers of people would be involved and the Institute itself would be largely a virtual organization. Few LMICs might be able to afford anything as comprehensive in scale and scope as NICE’s forms of deliberation. NICE itself had to modify some processes on grounds of cost. However, some approximations might be usefully attempted and then developed as experience teaches.