Effectiveness of educational interventions for healthcare workers on vaccination dialogue with older adults: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCW) significantly influence older adults' vaccine acceptance. This systematic review aimed to identify effective educational interventions for HCWs that could enhance their ability to engage in a dialogue with older adults on vaccination. METHODS: Medline, Scopus, Cochrane library and grey literature were searched for comparative studies investigating educational interventions concerning older adult vaccinations. The search encompassed all languages and publication years. Analysis was performed on the outcomes 'vaccines offered or ordered' and 'vaccination rates'. Whenever feasible, a sub-analysis on publication year was conducted. Methodological limitations were assessed using the RoB 2 for RCTs and the GRADE checklist for non-randomized studies. Study outcomes were categorized according to the four-level Kirkpatrick model (1996) for effectiveness: reaction, learning, behaviour, and results. RESULTS: In total, 48 studies met all inclusion criteria. Most studies included reminder systems signalling HCWs on patients due for vaccination. Other interventions included seminars, academic detailing and peer-comparison feedback. Four articles reporting on the reaction-level indicated that most HCWs had a favourable view of the intervention. Two of the six articles reporting on the learning-level observed positive changes in attitude or knowledge due to the intervention. Seventeen studies reported on the behaviour-level. An analysis on eleven out of seventeen studies focusing on vaccines 'ordered' or 'offered' outcomes suggested that tailored reminders, particularly those implemented before 2000, were the most effective. Out of 34 studies reporting on the result-level, 24 were eligible for analysis on the outcome 'vaccination rate', which showed that compared to usual care, multicomponent interventions were the most effective, followed by tailored reminders, especially those predating 2000. Nonetheless, tailored reminders often fell short compared to other interventions like standing orders or patient reminders. In both the behaviour-level and result-level 'education only' interventions frequently underperformed relative to other interventions. Seventeen out of the 27 RCTs, and seven of the 21 non-randomized studies presented a low-to-medium risk for bias in the studies' findings. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored reminders and multicomponent interventions effectively assist HCWs in addressing vaccines with older adults. However, education-only interventions appear to be less effective compared to other interventions rates, attitude, knowledge.

Recommendations for patient involvement in health technology assessment in Central and Eastern European countries.

Introduction: Meaningful patient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) is essential in ensuring that the interests of the affected patient population, their families, and the general public are accurately reflected in coverage and reimbursement decisions. Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries are generally at less advanced stages of implementing HTA, which is particularly true for patient involvement activities. As part of the Horizon2020 HTx project, this research aimed to form recommendations for critical barriers to patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries. Methods: Built on previous research findings on potential barriers, a prioritisation survey was conducted online with CEE stakeholders. Recommendations for prioritised barriers were formed through a face-to-face workshop by CEE stakeholders and HTx experts. Results: A total of 105 stakeholders from 13 CEE countries completed the prioritisation survey and identified 12 of the 22 potential barriers as highly important. The workshop had 36 participants representing 9 CEE countries, and 5 Western European countries coming together to discuss solutions in order to form recommendations based on best practices, real-life experience, and transferability aspects. Stakeholder groups involved in both phases included HTA organisation representatives, payers, patients, caregivers, patient organisation representatives, patient experts, health care providers, academic and non-academic researchers, health care consultants and health technology manufacturers/providers. As a result, 12 recommendations were formed specified to the CEE region's context, but potentially useful for a broader geographic audience. Conclusion: In this paper, we present 12 recommendations for meaningful, systematic, and sustainable patient involvement in HTA in CEE countries. Our hope is that engaging more than a hundred CEE stakeholders in the study helped to spread awareness of the importance and potential of patient involvement and that the resulting recommendations provide tangible steps for the way forward. Future studies shall focus on country-specific case studies of the implemented recommendations.

Recommendations to overcome barriers to the use of artificial intelligence-driven evidence in health technology assessment.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has attracted much attention because of its enormous potential in healthcare, but uptake has been slow. There are substantial barriers that challenge health technology assessment (HTA) professionals to use AI-generated evidence for decision-making from large real-world databases (e.g., based on claims data). As part of the European Commission-funded HTx H2020 (Next Generation Health Technology Assessment) project, we aimed to put forward recommendations to support healthcare decision-makers in integrating AI into the HTA processes. The barriers, addressed by the paper, are particularly focusing on Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, where the implementation of HTA and access to health databases lag behind Western European countries. Methods: We constructed a survey to rank the barriers to using AI for HTA purposes, completed by respondents from CEE jurisdictions with expertise in HTA. Using the results, two members of the HTx consortium from CEE developed recommendations on the most critical barriers. Then these recommendations were discussed in a workshop by a wider group of experts, including HTA and reimbursement decision-makers from both CEE countries and Western European countries, and summarized in a consensus report. Results: Recommendations have been developed to address the top 15 barriers in areas of (1) human factor-related barriers, focusing on educating HTA doers and users, establishing collaborations and best practice sharing; (2) regulatory and policy-related barriers, proposing increasing awareness and political commitment and improving the management of sensitive information for AI use; (3) data-related barriers, suggesting enhancing standardization and collaboration with data networks, managing missing and unstructured data, using analytical and statistical approaches to address bias, using quality assessment tools and quality standards, improving reporting, and developing better conditions for the use of data; and (4) technological barriers, suggesting sustainable development of AI infrastructure. Conclusion: In the field of HTA, the great potential of AI to support evidence generation and evaluation has not yet been sufficiently explored and realized. Raising awareness of the intended and unintended consequences of AI-based methods and encouraging political commitment from policymakers is necessary to upgrade the regulatory and infrastructural environment and knowledge base required to integrate AI into HTA-based decision-making processes better.

Guidance on using real-world evidence from Western Europe in Central and Eastern European health policy decision making.

Aim: Real-world data and real-world evidence (RWE) are becoming more important for healthcare decision making and health technology assessment. We aimed to propose solutions to overcome barriers preventing Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries from using RWE generated in Western Europe. Materials & methods: To achieve this, following a scoping review and a webinar, the most important barriers were selected through a survey. A workshop was held with CEE experts to discuss proposed solutions. Results: Based on survey results, we selected the nine most important barriers. Multiple solutions were proposed, for example, the need for a European consensus, and building trust in using RWE. Conclusion: Through collaboration with regional stakeholders, we proposed a list of solutions to overcome barriers on transferring RWE from Western Europe to CEE countries.

Development of a core evaluation framework of value-added medicines: report 1 on methodology and findings.

BACKGROUND: Medicines that are based on known molecules and are further developed to address healthcare needs and deliver relevant improvement for patients, healthcare professionals and/or payers are called value-added medicines (VAMs). The evaluation process of VAMs is heterogeneous across countries, and it has been primarily designed for originator pharmaceuticals with confirmatory evidence collected alongside pivotal clinical trials. There is a mismatch between evidence requirements by public decision-makers and evidence generated by manufacturers of VAMs. Our objective was to develop a core evaluation framework for VAMs. METHODS: Potential benefits offered by VAMs were collected through a systematic literature review and allocated to separate domains in an iterative process. The draft list of domains and their applicability were validated during two consecutive virtual workshops by health policy experts representing countries with different economic statuses, geographical and decision-making contexts. RESULTS: Based on 158 extracted studies, the final consensus on the evaluation framework resulted in 11 value domains in 5 main clusters, including unmet medical needs, health gain (measured by health care professionals), patient-reported outcomes, burden on households, and burden on the health care system. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed framework could reduce the heterogeneity in value assessment processes across countries and create incentives for manufacturers to invest in incremental innovation. However, some domains may not be equally relevant or accepted in all countries, therefore the core framework needs thorough adaptation in specific jurisdictions.

Development of a core evaluation framework of value-added medicines: report 2 on pharmaceutical policy perspectives.

BACKGROUND: A core evaluation framework that captures the health care and societal benefits of value added medicines (VAMs, also often called repurposed medicines) was proposed in Report 1, aiming to reduce the heterogeneity in value assessment processes across countries and to create incentives for manufacturers to invest into incremental innovation. However, this can be impactful only if the framework can be adapted to heterogeneous health care financing systems in different jurisdictions, and the cost of evidence generation necessitated by the framework takes into account the anticipated benefits for the health care system and rewards for the developers. AREAS COVERED: The framework could potentially improve the pricing and reimbursement decisions of VAMs by adapting it to different country specific decision-contexts such as deliberative processes, augmented cost-effectiveness frameworks or formal multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA); alternatively, some of its domains may be added to current general evaluation frameworks of medicines. The proposed evaluation framework may provide a starting point for practices based on which VAMs can be exempted from generic pricing mechanisms or can be integrated into the reimbursement and procurement system, allowing for price differentiation according to their added value. Besides evidence from RCTs, pricing and reimbursement decision processes of VAMs should allow for ex-ante non-RCT evidence for certain domains. Alternatively, relying on ex-post evidence agreements-such as outcome guarantee or coverage with evidence development-can also reduce decision uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: The core evaluation framework for VAMs could trigger changes in the existing pricing, reimbursement and procurement practices by improving the appraisal of the added value created by incremental innovation.

Barriers and facilitators of exploiting the potential of value-added medicines.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) is costly and only a minority of patients can access innovative medicines due to affordability constraints. Value-added medicines (VAMs) can offer potential benefits at significantly lower R&D costs. AREAS COVERED: VAMs may address different health care needs and problems, including off-label use of medicines, poor patient adherence, problems related to polypharmacy, need for home and/or personalized health care services. However, several barriers prevent societies from maximizing the benefits of incremental innovation related to VAMs. Generic manufacturers have limited budget and experience to demonstrate the value of new VAMs. Current market exclusivity options do not efficiently exclude freeridership and do not guarantee a return on investment for VAM innovators. Value propositions of VAMs are limitedly consistent with current HTA frameworks, consequently, incremental innovation is not acknowledged, nor rewarded with differential pricing by payers. Moreover, VAMs are often perceived solely as generic medicines by prescribers. EXPERT OPINION: Current practices may need to be reconsidered to exploit the full societal benefit of VAMs, including more efficient policies to guarantee market exclusivity for incremental innovation, acknowledgment of a fair price premium based on a specific value framework and the acceptance of low-cost evidence generation methods.