PP126 Direct Patient Involvement In HTA In Canada And Brazil: The Patients’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Since 2019, Canada’s Drug and Health Technology Agency (CADTH) has worked directly with patients through its Patient and Community Advisory Committee (PCAC). In Brazil, Conitec has worked directly with patients since 2021 through testimonials in its committee meetings for all assessed technologies. In this study we explored patients’ perspectives about their participation in these processes. Methods Two patients directly involved with both CADTH and Conitec were invited to share their perspectives about the strengths and weaknesses of the patient engagement processes. Results For CADTH, the strengths were as follows: PCAC focuses on the whole organization, including the patient engagement strategy and strategic plan, and is on the same level as other professional committees; PCAC members are compensated; the ‘Learning Sessions’ show CADTH staff the ramifications of their work in people’s lives; and there is increased patient engagement on other committees throughout CADTH. The weaknesses identified with the CADTH process were that PCAC is an advisory body with no decision-making authority and that the diversity of people on the PCAC could be increased. In addition, while CADTH informs and consults patients, the PCAC is not involved in individual HTAs. The strengths of Conitec’s process were that the volunteer is selected by patients; there are opportunities to consolidate direct patient involvement and promote it in other instances; and the technical support is excellent. On the downside, there was a lack of information about this opportunity; the testimonials last only ten minutes and patients are frequently not questioned; only one patient can participate; there is a lack of transparency about testimonial analysis and its role; and being the only representative during a discussion that culminates in a decision can cause anxiety about performance. Conclusions Patients felt heard in the engagement processes and stated that the PCAC embeds patient perspectives throughout CADTH, not just in particular HTAs. One patient felt that her participation was essential for the committees to understand patients’ lived experiences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".