 Reporting of Patient and Public Involvement in Technology Appraisal and Assessment Reports: A Rapid Scoping ReviewEugenie Evelynne Johnson (),
Cyril Onwuelazu Uteh,
Emma Belilios and
Fiona Pearson
The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2025, vol. 18, issue 2, No 3, 109-114 Abstract: Abstract Background The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) produces guidance on the use of health technologies (including new and existing medicines, medical devices, diagnostics and interventional procedures) in the National Health Service. Technology Appraisals inform recommendations on the use of new and existing health technologies. As part of its health technology evaluation process, NICE ask independent research groups known as Evidence or External Assessment Groups (EAGs) to assess or evaluate the available evidence surrounding health technologies. Although patients and the public are involved in the wider NICE Heath Technology Evaluation and Assessment process, little is known about the extent to which patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is undertaken and documented in EAG Reports. Objectives This rapid scoping review aimed to discover the extent to which PPIE is currently undertaken and documented in EAG Reports, which feed into the wider NICE health technology assessment process, and whether EAG Reports contain a plain language summary. Methods We searched the NICE website for guidance published between 27 September, 2022 and 27 September, 2023. All records were downloaded directly from the NICE website into an Excel spreadsheet for extraction. Evaluations that were terminated before guidance was published or where an EAG Report was not available as supporting evidence were excluded. One researcher charted information regarding the type of each EAG Report, whether a plain language summary was included, and whether documentation of PPIE was included in the EAG Report either within a stand-alone section or throughout the main text of the report. A second researcher checked charted information for 20% of these records. We tabulated data and described PPIE conduct and documentation in included EAG Reports within a narrative synthesis. Results A total of 97 EAG Reports were included in this rapid scoping review, the majority of which were documenting Single Technology Appraisals (N = 55). Of the 97 EAG Reports, 11 included a plain language summary. Of these 11 reports, two were Multiple Technology Appraisals, five were Diagnostic Assessment Reviews and four were Early Value Assessments. One Early Value Assessment, one Diagnostic Assessment Review and one Multiple Technology Appraisal reported that they did not conduct PPIE because of time constraints and noted that patients were involved in the wider NICE Appraisal process. Two Early Value Assessments that explicitly reported on PPIE used heterogenous methods of involvement. Conclusions There is currently limited PPIE documented in EAG Reports and inclusion of a plain language summary is uncommon. Further guidance is required to assist EAGs with embedding PPIE and a plain language summary into their Reports taking into consideration the ultra-rapid nature of the production of these reports. Date: 2025 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00721-7 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00721-7 Access Statistics for this article The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.