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 politicall...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Kerman University of Medical Sciences
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Health Policy and Management |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.ijhpm.com/article_4290_1f434e0f2ec9debdee72ca7117f81159.pdf |
| _version_ | 1827281690669613056 |
|---|---|
| author | Anthony J. Culyer |
| author_facet | Anthony J. Culyer |
| author_sort | Anthony J. Culyer |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T09:05:30Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-cdb59ae00d8a477d8325e8da491746d9 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2322-5939 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T09:05:30Z |
| publishDate | 2023-12-01 |
| publisher | Kerman University of Medical Sciences |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Health Policy and Management |
| spelling | doaj.art-cdb59ae00d8a477d8325e8da491746d92024-04-15T19:04:25ZengKerman University of Medical SciencesInternational Journal of Health Policy and Management2322-59392023-12-0112Issue 11410.34172/ijhpm.2022.73984290Reinforcing Science and Policy, With Suggestions for Future Research; Comment on “Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design – Part II: A Practical Guide”Anthony J. Culyer0Department of Economics and Related Studies and Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UKOortwijn 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.https://www.ijhpm.com/article_4290_1f434e0f2ec9debdee72ca7117f81159.pdfhtadeliberationconsensuspolitical bias |
| spellingShingle | 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 hta deliberation consensus political bias |
| 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” |
| title_full | 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” |
| title_fullStr | 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” |
| title_full_unstemmed | 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” |
| title_short | 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” |
| title_sort | 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 |
| topic | hta deliberation consensus political bias |
| url | https://www.ijhpm.com/article_4290_1f434e0f2ec9debdee72ca7117f81159.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT anthonyjculyer reinforcingscienceandpolicywithsuggestionsforfutureresearchcommentonevidenceinformeddeliberativeprocessesforhealthbenefitpackagedesignpartiiapracticalguide |