On the normativity of evidence:Lessons from philosophy of science and the “VALIDATE” project

“Evidence” is a key term in medicine and health services research, including Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have undoubtedly nominated the scene of generating evidence for a long period of time, becoming the hallmark of evidence-based medicine (EBM). However, due to a number of misunderstandings, the lay audience and some researchers have sometimes placed too much trust in RCTs compared to other methods of investigation.One of the principal misunderstandings is to consider RCTs findings as isolated and self-apparent pieces of information. In other words, what has been essentially lacking was the awareness of the value-context of the evidence and, in particular, the value- and theory-ladenness (normativity) of scientific knowledge.This paper aims to emphasize the normativity that exists in the production of scientific knowledge, and in particular in the conduct of RCTs as well as in the performance of HTA. The work is based on some lessons learned from Philosophy of Science and the European project “VALIDATE” (VALues In Doing Assessments of healthcare TEchnologies”). VALIDATE was a three-year EUErasmus+ strategic partnerships project (2018-2021), in which training in the field of HTA was further optimized by using insights from political science and ethics (in accordance with the recent definition of HTA). Our analysis may reveal useful insights for addressing some challenges that HTA is going to face in the future

Prioritisation of patients on waiting lists for hip and knee arthroplasties and cataract surgery: Instruments validation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prioritisation instruments were developed for patients on waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasties (AI) and cataract surgery (CI). The aim of the study was to assess their convergent and discriminant validity and inter-observer reliability.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Multicentre validation study which included orthopaedic surgeons and ophthalmologists from 10 hospitals. Participating doctors were asked to include all eligible patients placed in the waiting list for the procedures under study during the medical visit. Doctors assessed patients' priority through a visual analogue scale (VAS) and administered the prioritisation instrument. Information on socio-demographic data and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (HUI3, EQ-5D, WOMAC and VF-14) was obtained through a telephone interview with patients. The correlation coefficients between the prioritisation instrument score and VAS and HRQOL were calculated. For the reliability study a self-administered questionnaire, which included hypothetic patients' scenarios, was sent via postal mail to the doctors. The priority of these scenarios was assessed through the prioritisation instrument. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between doctors was calculated.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Correlations with VAS were strong for the AI (0.64, CI95%: 0.59–0.68) and for the CI (0.65, CI95%: 0.62–0.69), and moderate between the WOMAC and the AI (0.39, CI95%: 0.33–0.45) and the VF-14 and the CI (0.38, IC95%: 0.33–0.43). The results of the discriminant analysis were in general as expected. Inter-observer reliability was 0.79 (CI95%: 0.64–0.94) for the AI, and 0.79 (CI95%: 0.63–0.95) for the CI.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results show acceptable validity and reliability of the prioritisation instruments in establishing priority for surgery.</p

Citizens opinions, experiences and perceptions about waiting lists for elective cataract surgery and hip and knee replacement.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe the views, perceptions and personal experience around elective cataract and hip and knee replacement waiting lists in Catalonia in order to improve their management. DESIGN: Qualitative methodology: four focus groups for each procedure. PLACE: Conducted between February-March 2000 at the Catalan Health Services headquarters. PARTICIPANTS: Each focus group included consultants (ophtalmologists, orthopedic surgeons, rheumatologists, rehabilitators, GPs), other related health professionals (nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, opticians/optometrist, GPs), patients and relatives and general population. Participants were selected through researchers and the clinical scientific committees. All of them followed a pre-established inclusion criteria. MAIN MEASURES: The analysis of the information was performed using the content analysis technique (contents of sessions were transcripted and information classified according to themes). RESULTS: Ten themes were identified. Waiting lists were argued to be a consequence of lack of resources, bad management and conflict of interest among consultants. Overall, the health care authority responsibility for the solution was acknowledged, although some participants claim more citizen participation. Among proposed solutions, prevention and education, more resources and improved management were found. Furthermore, a better physician-patient communication was considered essential. All the groups disagreed with the implicit current prioritisation system, however none wanted to assume the responsibility. CONCLUSIONS: Citizen's perceptions and personal experiences point to a multifactorial approach to waiting lists management, which would ameliorate the problem and lead to a better social acceptance

On the integration of early health technology assessment in the innovation process: reflections from five stakeholders

Early health technology assessment (HTA), which includes all methods used to inform industry and other stakeholders about the potential value of new medical products in development, including methods to quantify and manage uncertainty, has seen many applications in recent years. However, it is still unclear how such early value assessments can be integrated into the technology innovation process. This commentary contributes to the discussion on the purposes early HTA can serve. Similarities and differences in the perspectives of five stakeholders (i.e., the hospital, the patient, the assessor, the medical device industry, and the policy maker) on the purpose, value, and potential challenges of early HTA are described. All five stakeholders agreed that integrating early HTA in the innovation process has the possibility to shape and refine an innovation, and inform research and development decisions. The early assessment, using a variety of methodologies, can provide insights that are relevant for all stakeholders but several challenges, for example, feasibility and responsibility, need to be addressed before early HTA can become standard practice. For early evaluations to be successful, all relevant stakeholders including patients need to be involved. Also, nimble, flexible assessment methods are needed that fit the dynamics of medical technology. Best practices should be shared to optimize both the innovation process and the methods to perform an early value assessment