Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Department of Community Medicine and Global Health, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021 Mar 14;10(4):232-236. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.145.
This comment reflects on an article by Oortwijn, Jansen, and Baltussen about the use and features of 'evidence-informed deliberative processes' (EDPs) among health technology assessment (HTA) agencies around the world and the need for more guidance. First, we highlight procedural aspects that are relevant across key steps of EDP, focusing on conflict of interest, the different roles of stakeholders throughout a HTA and public justification of decisions. Second, we discuss new knowledge and models needed to maximize the value of deliberative processes at the expanding frontiers of HTA, paying special attention to when HTA is applied in primary care, employed for public health interventions, and is produced through international collaboration.
这篇评论反思了 Oortwijn、Jansen 和 Baltussen 撰写的一篇文章,内容涉及全球卫生技术评估 (HTA) 机构使用和体现“循证审议过程” (EDP) 的情况,以及对更多指导意见的需求。首先,我们突出了 EDP 各关键步骤中相关的程序方面,重点讨论利益冲突、HTA 全过程中利益相关者的不同角色以及决策的公众论证。其次,我们讨论了在 HTA 的不断扩展前沿领域最大限度提高审议过程价值所需的新知识和模型,特别关注当 HTA 应用于初级保健、用于公共卫生干预措施以及通过国际合作产生时的情况。