Keywords
Qualitative evidence
Patient and public involvement
How to Cite
Abstract
This article developed as a theoretical essay, aims to discuss the introduction of qualitative evidence in the Health Technology
Assessment (HTA) process. To this end, firstly, the potential contributions of qualitative data to support this decision-making
were addressed. Secondarily, this epistemological reformulation was approached within the scope of National Commission for the
Incorporation of Technologies into the Unified Health System (Conitec). In this sense, this paper presents the current uses and
perspectives for qualitative evidence in HTA in the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) and its strategic function in promoting
patient and public involvement, as well as the consideration of experiential aspects in the HTA process in Brazil.
References
1. O’Rourke B, Oortwijn W, Schuller T, International Joint Task Group. The new definition of health technology assessment: A milestone in international collaboration. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36(3):187-90.
2. Barreto J, Lewin S. Uso da evidência qualitativa para informar decisões no Brasil e na região da América Latina. Bis, Bol Inst Saúde. 2019;20(2):23-36.
3. Popay J, Rogers A, Williams G. Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research. 1998;8(3):341-51.
4. Gunn CJ, Regeer BJ, Zuiderent-Jerak T. A HTA of what? Reframing through including patient perspectives in health technology assessment processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2023;39(1):e27.
5. Hansen HP, Draborg E, Kristensen FB. Exploring qualitative research synthesis: the role of patients' perspectives in health policy design and decision making. Patient. 2011;4(3):143-52.
6. Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25(6):1083-120.
7. Leys M. Health care policy: qualitative evidence and health technology assessment. Health Policy. 2003;65(3):217-26.
8. Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 5. ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2018.
9. Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Gerhardus A, Wahlster P,Van Der Wilt G et al. Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions [Internet]. 2016 [acesso em 2 set 2021]. Disponível em: http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/.
10. Majid U, Weeks L. Rapid qualitative evidence syntheses (rQES) in health technology assessment: experiences, challenges, and lessons. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2021;37(e14):1-9.
11. Facey KM, Hansen HP, Single ANV. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer; 2017.
12. Szabo SM, Hawkins NS, Germeni E. The extent and quality of qualitative evidence included in health technology assessments: a review of submissions to NICE and CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2023;40(1):e6.
13. Sousa MSA, Wainwright M, Soares CB. Sínteses de Evidências Qualitativas: guia introdutório. Bis, Bol Inst Saúde. 2019;20(2):7-22.
14. Booth A. Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review.
Systematic Reviews. 2016;5:74.
15. Glenton C, Lewin S, Norris S. Using evidence from qualitative research to develop WHO guidelines. In: World Health Organization. Handbook for Guideline Development. 2. ed. Genebra: World Health Organization; 2016. p. 183-200.
16. Lewin S, Glenton C. Are we entering a new era for qualitative research? Using qualitative evidence to support guidance and guideline development by the World Health Organization. Int J Equity Health. 2018;17(1):126.
17. Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, Flemming K, Harden A, et al. Qualitative evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, organizadores. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: version 6.4 [acesso em 18 mar 2024]. Cochrane; 2023. Cap. 21. Disponível em: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-21.
18. Lockwood C, Porritt K, Munn Z, Rittenmeyer L, Salmond S, Bjerrum M, Loveday H, Carrier J, Stannard D. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. Aromataris E, Munn Z, organizadores. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020. Cap. 2. Disponível em: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global.
19. Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kass H, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001895.
20. Ring N, Jepson R, Ritchie K. Methods of synthesizing qualitative research studies for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):384-90.
21. NICE - Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance [acesso em 25 jan 2022]. 3. ed. 2012. Disponível em: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg4/resources/methods-for-the-development-of-nice-public-health-guidance-third-edition-pdf-2007967445701.
22. Drummond M, Scwartz JS, Jönsson B, Luce BR, Neumann PJ, Siebert U, Sullivan SD. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;24(3):362-68.
23. Pichon-Riviere A, Soto NC, Augustoviski FA, Martín SG, Sampietro-Colom L. Evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias para la toma de decisiones en Latinoamérica: principios de buenas prácticas. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2018:19(4):e138.
24. Pichon-Riviere A, Augustovski F, Rubinstein A, Martí SG, Sullivan SD, Drummond MF. Health technology assessment for resource allocation decisions: Are key principles relevant for Latin America?. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(4):421-27.
25. Brasil, Constituição (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil. Brasília (DF): Senado Federal; 1988.
26. Brasil. Lei nº 8.142, de 28 de dezembro de 1990. Dispõe sobre a participação da comunidade na gestão do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) e sobre as transferências intergovernamentais de recursos financeiros na área da saúde e dá outras providências. Brasil: Presidência da República; 1990 [acesso em 19 fev 2020]. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L8142.htm.
27. Paim JS. O que é o SUS. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz; 2009.
28. Brasil. Lei nº 12.401, de 28 de abril de 2011. Altera a Lei nº 8.080, de 19 de setembro de 1990, para dispor sobre a assistência terapêutica e a incorporação de tecnologia em saúde no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS. Brasil: Presidência da República; 2011 [acesso em 19 fev 2020]. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2011/lei/l12401.htm.
29. Conitec [internet]. [acesso em 12 mar 2024]. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/conitec/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudo/biblioteca-virtual/sintese-de-evidencia-qualitativa.
30. Mattos RA. Os sentidos da integralidade: algumas reflexões acerca de valores que merecem ser defendidos. In: Pinheiro R, Mattos RA, organizadores. Os sentidos da integralidade na atenção e no cuidado à saúde. Rio de Janeiro: IMS; ABRASCO; 2001. p. 39-64.
31. Cecílio LCO. As necessidades de saúde como conceito estruturante na luta pela integralidade e equidade na atuação em saúde. In: Pinheiro R, Mattos RA, organizadores. Os sentidos da integralidade na atenção e no cuidado à saúde. Rio de Janeiro: IMS; ABRASCO; 2001. p. 113-26.
32. Kelly M, Ellaway RH, Reid H, Ganshron H, Yardley S, Bennett D, Dornan T. Considering axiological integrity: a methodological analysis of qualitative evidence syntheses, and its implications for health professions education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018;23(4):833-51.
33. Bearman M, Dawson P. Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Med Educ. 2013;47(3):252-260.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Clarice Moreira Portugal, Adriana Prates Sacramento, Andrea Brígida de Souza, Andrija de Oliveira Almeida, Melina Sampaio de Ramos Barros