Potential Barriers of Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment in Central and Eastern European Countries

Patients' perspectives are important to identify preferences, estimate values and appreciate unmet medical needs in the process of research and development and subsequent assessment of new health technologies. Patient and public involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is essential in understanding and assessing wider implications of coverage and reimbursement decisions for patients, their relatives, caregivers, and the general population. There are two approaches to incorporating the patients' voice in HTA, preferably used in a mix. In the first one, patients, caregivers and/or their representatives directly participate at discussions in different stages of the HTA process, often at the same table with other stakeholders. Secondly, patient involvement activities can be supported by evidence on patient value and experience collected directly from patients, caregivers and/or their representatives often by patient groups Patient involvement practices, however, are limited in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries without clear methodology or regulatory mechanisms to guide patient involvement in the HTA process. This poses the question of transferability of practices used in other countries, and might call for the development of new CEE-specific guidelines and methods. In this study we aim to map potential barriers of patient involvement in HTA in countries of the CEE region

The patient at the centre: evidence from 17 European integrated care programmes for persons with complex needs

Background: As the prevalence of multi-morbidity increases in ageing societies, health and social care systems face the challenge of providing adequate care to persons with complex needs. Approaches that integrate care across sectors and disciplines have been increasingly developed and implemented in European countries in order to tackle this challenge. The aim of the article is to identify success factors and crucial elements in the process of integrated care delivery for persons with complex needs as seen from the practical perspective of the involved stakeholders (patients, professionals, informal caregivers, managers, initiators, payers). Methods: Seventeen integrated care programmes for persons with complex needs in 8 European countries were investigated using a qualitative approach, namely thick description, based on semi-structured interviews and document analysis. In total, 233 face-to-face interviews were conducted with stakeholders of the programmes between March and September 2016. Meta-analysis of the individual thick description reports was performed with a focus on the process of care delivery. Results: Four categories that emerged from the overarching analysis are discussed in the article: (1) a holistic view of the patient, considering both mental health and the social situation in addition to physical health, (2) continuity of care in the form of single contact points, alignment of services and good relationships between patients and professionals, (3) relationships between professionals built on trust and facilitated by continuous communication, and (4) patient involvement in goal-setting and decision-making, allowing patients to adapt to reorganised service delivery. Conclusions: We were able to identify several key aspects for a well-functioning integrated care process for complex patients and how these are put into actual practice. The article sets itself apart from the existing literature by specifically focussing on the growing share of the population with complex care needs and by providing an analysis of actual processes and interpersonal relationships that shape integrated care in practice, incorporating evidence from a variety of programmes in several countries

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards for Interventions That Use Artificial Intelligence (CHEERS-AI)

Objectives: Economic evaluations (EEs) are commonly used by decision makers to understand the value of health interventions. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) provide reporting guidelines for EEs. Healthcare systems will increasingly see new interventions that use artificial intelligence (AI) to perform their function. We developed Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards for Interventions that use AI (CHEERS-AI) to ensure EEs of AI-based health interventions are reported in a transparent and reproducible manner. Methods: Potential CHEERS-AI reporting items were informed by 2 published systematic literature reviews of EEs and a contemporary update. A Delphi study was conducted using 3 survey rounds to elicit multidisciplinary expert views on 26 potential items, through a 9-point Likert rating scale and qualitative comments. An online consensus meeting was held to finalize outstanding reporting items. A digital health patient group reviewed the final checklist from a patient perspective. Results: A total of 58 participants responded to survey round 1, 42, and 31 of whom responded to rounds 2 and 3, respectively. Nine participants joined the consensus meeting. Ultimately, 38 reporting items were included in CHEERS-AI. They comprised the 28 original CHEERS 2022 items, plus 10 new AI-specific reporting items. Additionally, 8 of the original CHEERS 2022 items were elaborated on to ensure AI-specific nuance is reported. Conclusions: CHEERS-AI should be used when reporting an EE of an intervention that uses AI to perform its function. CHEERS-AI will help decision makers and reviewers to understand important AI-specific details of an intervention, and any implications for the EE methods used and cost-effectiveness conclusions

Barriers to use artificial intelligence methodologies in health technology assessment in central and East European countries

Abstract The aim of this paper is to identify the barriers that are specifically relevant to the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based evidence in Central and Eastern European (CEE) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systems. The study relied on two main parallel sources to identify barriers to use AI methodologies in HTA in CEE, including a scoping literature review and iterative focus group meetings with HTx team members. Most of the other selected articles discussed AI from a clinical perspective (n = 25), and the rest are from regulatory perspective (n = 13), and transfer of knowledge point of view (n = 3). Clinical areas studied are quite diverse—from pediatric, diabetes, diagnostic radiology, gynecology, oncology, surgery, psychiatry, cardiology, infection diseases, and oncology. Out of all 38 articles, 25 (66%) describe the AI method and the rest are more focused on the utilization barriers of different health care services and programs. The potential barriers could be classified as data related, methodological, technological, regulatory and policy related, and human factor related. Some of the barriers are quite similar, especially concerning the technologies. Studies focusing on the AI usage for HTA decision making are scarce. AI and augmented decision making tools are a novel science, and we are in the process of adapting it to existing needs. HTA as a process requires multiple steps, multiple evaluations which rely on heterogenous data. Therefore, the observed range of barriers come as a no surprise, and experts in the field need to give their opinion on the most important barriers in order to develop recommendations to overcome them and to disseminate the practical application of these tools