Exploring The Influence Of Patient Preference Information In Health Technology Assessment: Insights From Mock Deliberations With Agencies

Sep 29, 2026

Uploaded by Hazel

The study investigates how patient preference information (PPI) is interpreted and incorporated into health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making. Mock deliberation workshops were run by members of the HTAi Patient Preference Project Subcommittee with experts from four HTA agencies, using a simulated evidence package that combined PPI with key clinical and economic evidence. Thematic analysis examined how PPI influenced decisions across scenarios. Results show that PPI was valued but its persuasiveness varied, underscoring the need for structured guidance, standardized integration pathways, and clearer content and format to support consistent use.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryHealthcare

FormatPDF

Pages1

Reading Time3 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

PD32 Opportunities And Challenges: Health Technology Assessment Body Perspectives On The Integration Of Artificial Intelligence In Evidence Synthesis Grace Fox, Juliette Torres Ames, Nita Santpurkar, Petra Nass and Emanuele Arcà([emanuelearca@openhealthgroup.com](emanuelearca@openhealthgroup.com)) Introduction: Evidence synthesis is the foundation of health technology assessment (HTA); however, systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are highly resource intensive. While augmentation with artificial intelligence (AI) theoretically offers to make this rigorous process more efficient, it is unclear whether AI-supported SLRs will be widely accepted among HTA bodies. This study’s objective was to evaluate how HTA bodies regard the use of AI-supported SLRs. Methods: A targeted literature review (TLR) (January 2019 to October 2024) was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, and the gray literature. Search terms included AI, natural language processing, large language models, and machine learning. The TLR informed development of a survey to be fielded to respondents from HTA bodies and questions for qualitative interviews. Results: The TLR found that most HTA bodies do not address using AI for SLRs. Two that do are the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (England) and the Institute for Quality and Efficiencyin HealthCare(Germany). Both suggested that AI can support human efforts across multiple SLR phases. Respondents from Europe and the USA completed the survey and qualitative interviews. Most respondents had some familiarity with using AI in SLRs but said their respective organizations doubted AI’s utility in improving the quality of SLRs. Respondents stated the primary responsibility for AI tool development and validation should not rest with manufacturers. Conclusions: Most HTA bodies do not address using AI for SLRs, but respondents said that AI might improve SLR production by augmenting (not replacing) human effort. Gaining acceptance for AI use in SLRs for HTA will require multistakeholder engagement to ensure transparency and reliability. HTA bodies will need appropriate infrastructure and legal frameworks so that they can test and use AI software. PD33 Exploring The Influence Of Patient Preference Information In Health Technology Assessment: Insights From Mock Deliberations With Agencies Carina Oedingen, Barry Liden ([bliden@usc.edu](bliden@usc.edu)), Simon Fifer, Deborah A. Marshall, Maya Joshi, Catherine Koola Fischer, Mandy Tonkinson, Alissa Hanna, Mickael Hiligsmann, Evi Germeni, Mo Zhou, Barry Stein and Harry Kotlarz Introduction: Internationally, there is a growing drive to integrate patient preference information (PPI) into health technology assessment (HTA) decision-making. However, it is unclear how PPI is used in real-world contexts and the extent to which it can reshape and influence HTA decisions. Understanding how PPI can be meaningfully used in HTA is fundamental for supporting its practical application and increasing trust in its use. Methods: The aim was to enhance understanding of how HTA committees interpret and incorporate PPI into decision-making. Mock deliberation workshops were conducted by members of the HTAi Patient Preference Project Subcommittee with experts from four HTA agencies. For the workshops, a mock evidence package was developed that included PPI evidence alongside key clinical and economic evidence to simulate decision-making processes. The mock deliberations were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: The mock deliberation workshops (25 participants) highlighted both opportunities and challenges in integrating PPI into HTA processes. While PPI was acknowledged as valuable evidence, its influence on decision-making in the scenarios varied from being cited by a few participants as informing the decision to most participants indicating the evidence was not persuasive. Participants pointed out the need for more structured guidance on how to incorporate PPI alongside c

FAQs

What was the study’s main goal regarding PPI in HTA?

To enhance understanding of how HTA committees interpret and incorporate patient preference information into decision-making.

How were the PPI findings generated in the study?

Mock deliberation workshops used a simulated evidence package combining PPI with clinical and economic evidence, and the discussions were analyzed using thematic analysis.

What did the study conclude about how PPI influences HTA decisions?

PPI was acknowledged as valuable, but its influence varied across scenarios; participants called for more structured guidance and standardized integration, including the content and format of PPI.

Sep 29, 2026

Uploaded by Hazel