Predicting future outcomes in health technology assessment (HTA)

My fellowship is methodological, so I am interested in examples of public and patient involvement (PPI) in methodological work. This 2016 article isn't specifically about methodological work, but it is about PPI in HTA, which has methodological components, so is relevant to my work. As the title suggests, the objective of this work is to develop a framework to allow patients and members of the public to be involved in HTA. Evidence was identified via three sources: a systematic literature review, searching the websites of HTA organisations, and 'stakeholder dialogue'. Outputs included six guiding principles for PPI, it should be: Purposeful Pragmatic Fair and equitable Proportional Evidence-informed Transparent More details on these principles may be found here . In addition, PPI was broken-down into three mechanisms of involvement: Communication: such as dissemination of results. For this, PPI is usually passive. Consultation: to gain input, such as o

The problem of trying to predict future outcomes has long been a problem in HTA. The below provide some key reading on extrapolation, from a variety of different perspectives. All of the below should be open access, but if you have any problems please contact me . NICE Decision Support Unit Technical Support Document 14 (2013) This is a detailed report into the methods available for the analysis and extrapolation of time-to-event outcomes (also known as survival data). It was authored by the NICE Decision Support Unit (DSU), who provide support to NICE and their HTA work (the DSU have a series of Technical Support Documents , which are required reading for anyone working in HTA). This report had two main components: a review of extrapolation methods currently used, and guidance on producing extrapolations. This guidance includes both a model selection process algorithm, and clarification points. Since its publication, this report has been highly cited and used, both in the literat