@article { author = {Culyer, Anthony J.}, title = {Reinforcing Science and Policy, With Suggestions for Future Research; Comment on “Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide”}, journal = {International Journal of Health Policy and Management}, volume = {12}, number = {Issue 1}, pages = {1-4}, year = {2023}, publisher = {Kerman University of Medical Sciences}, issn = {2322-5939}, eissn = {2322-5939}, doi = {10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7398}, abstract = {Oortwijn et al continue their guide to good practice in the use of deliberative processes in health technology assessment (HTA) based on a survey of international practice. This is useful, and I applaud their care in maintaining objectivity, especially regarding the treatment of moral and politically controversial issues, in reporting how jurisdictions have handled such matters in designing HTA procedures and in their execution. To their suggestions for future research, I add: the historical development of deliberation in healthcare decision-making and in other fields of public choice, with comparisons of methods, successes and failures; development of guidance on the design and use of deliberative processes that enhance decision-making when there is no consensus amongst the decision-makers; ways of identifying and managing context-free and context-sensitive evidence; and a review of high-level capacity building to raise awareness of HTA and the use of knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) and deliberation amongst policy makers, especially in low and middle-income countries.}, keywords = {HTA,Deliberation,Consensus,Political Bias}, url = {https://www.ijhpm.com/article_4290.html}, eprint = {https://www.ijhpm.com/article_4290_1f434e0f2ec9debdee72ca7117f81159.pdf} }