Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes (EDP) — Part II: A Practical Guide
A practical guide to help countries design fair and inclusive health benefit packages by bringing together stakeholders to discuss and reflect on values, using evidence to inform decisions about which health services to include.
At a glance
Use when
Designing or reforming health benefit packages; seeking to improve inclusiveness and legitimacy in HTA decisions; integrating ethical and social values into health policy
Avoid when
Rapid decisions are required without stakeholder engagement; when institutional capacity for deliberation is absent; in highly politicized environments without neutral facilitation
Inputs
Stakeholder input, evidence on social and ethical values, HTA findings, policy context
Outputs
Guidance on structuring deliberative processes, recommendations for improving legitimacy in HTA
How it works
This 2021 guideline elaborates on the implementation of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes (EDPs), a structured approach to health benefit package design that integrates stakeholder deliberation with evidence on values. It builds on a conceptual framework and offers revised steps for EDPs, informed by global academic exchange, surveys of 27 HTA bodies and 66 experts, and real-world implementation experiences in multiple countries. The guide addresses legitimacy through stakeholder participation, evidence-informed evaluation, transparency, and appeal mechanisms, and reviews practices in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Scotland, Thailand, and the UK.
- HTA domains
- Organisational aspects, Patient and Social Aspects, Aspects Beyond HTA
- Assumptions
- Stakeholder deliberation improves the legitimacy of health decisions; evidence on values can inform and enrich deliberation; transparency and appeal mechanisms strengthen trust in decisions
- Strengths
- Provides a structured, adaptable framework for inclusive decision-making; grounded in global expert input and real-world implementation; enhances legitimacy and transparency in HTA processes
- Limitations
- Still in early stages of implementation; limited empirical data on long-term impact; adoption varies significantly across countries
- Also known as
- EDP Guide Part II, Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes Practical Guide
Questions this answers
- › How can stakeholder values be systematically included in health benefit package design?
- › What steps are involved in implementing an Evidence-Informed Deliberative Process (EDP)?
- › How do different HTA bodies ensure legitimacy in decision-making?
- › What role does evidence play in informing deliberative processes?
- › How can transparency and appeal mechanisms be integrated into HTA processes?
- › What improvements do current HTA systems need to better support deliberative processes?
References & sources
Similar by meaning
- Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes (EDP) framework
- Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for HTA: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force
- Principles for Deliberative Processes in HTA
- Patients' Perspectives in HTA: A Route to Robust Evidence and Fair Deliberation
- GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks
Beta record. Generated from the primary source via AI extraction and independent audit, pending final human review.