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”
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.
Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for health benefit package design–part II: a practical guide. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.159
Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes. Step-by-step practical guide for HTA agencies to enhance legitimate decision-making. Nijmegen, the Netherlands. https://www.radboudumc.nl/global-health-priorities. Published 2019.
Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-Informed Deliberative Process: A Practical Guide for HTA Bodies for Legitimate Benefit Package Design. Nijmegen: Radboud University Medical Center; 2021.
Culyer AJ. Perspective and desire in comparative effectiveness research: the relative unimportance of mere preferences, the central importance of context. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):889-897. doi:2165/11535270-000000000-00000
Culyer AJ. Cost, context, and decisions in health economics and health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34(5):434-441. doi:1017/s0266462318000612
Česnulaitytė I. Models of representative deliberative processes. In: Peña-López I, ed. Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2020. doi:1787/36f3f279-en
Smith G, Wales C. Citizens' juries and deliberative democracy. Polit Stud (Oxf). 2000;48(1):51-65. doi:1111/1467-9248.00250
Watt AM, Hiller JE, Braunack-Mayer AJ, et al. The ASTUTE Health study protocol: deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment. Implement Sci. 2012;7:101. doi:1186/1748-5908-7-101
Habermas J. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Suhrkamp Verlag: Frankfurt. 1962. Trans Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence as The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press; 1989.
Mendelberg T. The deliberative citizen: theory and evidence. In: Carpini MD, Huddy L, Shapiro RY, eds. Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation: Research in Micropolitics. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2002. p. 151-193.
Lindblom CE. The science of "muddling through.” Public Adm Rev. 1959;19(2):79-88. doi:2307/973677
Petts J. Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management. J Risk Res. 2004;7(2):115-133. doi:1080/1366987042000158695
Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S. Conceptualizing and Combining Evidence for Health System Guidance. Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2005.
Rosen R. Applying research to health care policy and practice: medical and managerial views on effectiveness and the role of research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000;5(2):103-108. doi:1177/135581960000500208
Mitton C, Patten S. Evidence-based priority-setting: what do the decision-makers think? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004;9(3):146-152. doi:1258/1355819041403240
Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Upshur RE. Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(1):207-217. doi:1016/s0277-9536(03)00166-7
Greenhalgh T, Worrall JG. From EBM to CSM: the evolution of context-sensitive medicine. J Eval Clin Pract. 1997;3(2):105-108. doi:1046/j.1365-2753.1997.00096.x
O'Brien N, Li R, Isaranuwatchai W, et al. How can we make better health decisions a Best Buy for all?: Commentary based on discussions at iDSI roundtable on 2nd May 2019 London, UK. Gates Open Res. 2019;3:1543. doi:12688/gatesopenres.13063.2
Culyer, A. J. (2023). 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”. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 12(Issue 1), 1-4. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7398
MLA
Anthony J. Culyer. "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”". International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 12, Issue 1, 2023, 1-4. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7398
HARVARD
Culyer, A. J. (2023). '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”', International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 12(Issue 1), pp. 1-4. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7398
VANCOUVER
Culyer, A. J. 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”. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2023; 12(Issue 1): 1-4. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.7398