<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>Kerman University of Medical Sciences</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>International Journal of Health Policy and Management</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>2322-5939</Issn>
				<Volume>11</Volume>
				<Issue>10</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2022</Year>
					<Month>10</Month>
					<Day>01</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Legitimate Health Benefit Package Design − Part I: Conceptual Framework</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle></VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>2319</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>2326</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">4165</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.34172/ijhpm.2021.158</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>EN</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Rob</FirstName>
					<LastName>Baltussen</LastName>
<Affiliation>Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud
University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands</Affiliation>
<Identifier Source="ORCID">0000-0002-8364-2847</Identifier>

</Author>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Maarten</FirstName>
					<LastName>Jansen</LastName>
<Affiliation>Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud
University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands</Affiliation>

</Author>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Wija</FirstName>
					<LastName>Oortwijn</LastName>
<Affiliation>Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud
University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands</Affiliation>
<Identifier Source="ORCID">0000-0003-4499-8602</Identifier>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2021</Year>
					<Month>04</Month>
					<Day>09</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>&lt;span class=&quot;fontstyle0&quot;&gt;Background  &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fontstyle2&quot;&gt;Countries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit packages to achieve universal health coverage (UHC). Health technology assessment (HTA) bodies support governments in these decisions, but employ value frameworks that do not sufficiently account for the intrinsically complex and value-laden political reality of benefit package design.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fontstyle2&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fontstyle0&quot;&gt;Methods  &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fontstyle2&quot;&gt;Several years ago, evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were developed to address this issue. An EDP is a practical and stepwise approach for HTA bodies to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, and to interpret available evidence on these values. We further developed the conceptual framework and initial 2019 guidance based on academic knowledge exchange, analysing practices of HTA bodies, surveying HTA bodies and experts around the globe, and implementation of EDPs in several countries around the world.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fontstyle2&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fontstyle0&quot;&gt;Results  &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fontstyle2&quot;&gt;EDPs stem from the general concept of legitimacy, which is translated into four elements – stakeholder involvement ideally operationalised through stakeholder participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal. The 2021 practical guidance distinguishes six practical steps of a HTA process and provides recommendations on how these elements can be implemented in each of these steps.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fontstyle2&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fontstyle0&quot;&gt;Conclusion  &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fontstyle2&quot;&gt;There is an increased attention for legitimacy, deliberative processes for HTA and health benefit package design, but the development of theories and methods for such processes remain behind. The added value of EDPs lies in the operationalisation of the general concept of legitimacy into practical guidance for HTA bodies.&lt;/span&gt;</Abstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Health Benefit Package</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Health Technology Assessment</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Universal Health Coverage</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Stakeholder Involvement</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Legitimacy</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://www.ijhpm.com/article_4165_a7f0d2b95c60161b3f3c82f764b1d1c9.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
