# Expert participation in the health technology assessment process: a scoping review

## TL;DR

This paper reviews how specialists participate in assessing health technologies, finding variations based on technology type and assessment methods.

## Contribution

The study provides a structured analysis of specialist involvement in health technology assessment across different technology types and attributes.

## Key findings

- Specialist participation ranged from three to 15 in 64% of studies.
- Participation methods varied by technology type, with online and in-person assessments being common.
- The study highlights the need to tailor assessments to specific technology characteristics.

## Abstract

to map evidence on specialist participation in the health technology assessment process.

a scoping review was conducted using the JBI method, searching the MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE/Elsevier, WoS/Clarivate, CINAHL, ASP/EBSCO, APA PsycINFO, ERIC, LILACS/BVS, SciELO, and INAHTA databases. Original articles published between 2013 and 2023 were considered. Data were extracted from 89 studies and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

between three and 15 specialists (64% of studies) participated. The property attribute was assessed for digital and non-digital devices, management systems, and equipment (93.1%, 94.2%, 60%, 33.3%, respectively), the cost-effectiveness attribute, for medications (60%), and the utility attribute, for medical-surgical procedures (31.6%). Participation was online, using digital and non-digital devices (53% and 52%, respectively), in-person, using devices (77.7%), and mixed, for the other types.

it is necessary to structure the assessment according to the specific characteristics of the technology type, providing insights for implementing innovations in this sector.

mapear evidências sobre a participação de especialistas no processo de avaliação de tecnologias em saúde.

revisão de escopo pelo método JBI, com busca nas bases de dados MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE/Elsevier, WoS/Clarivate, CINAHL, ASP/EBSCO, APA PsycINFO, ERIC, LILACS/BVS, SciELO e INAHTA. Foram considerados artigos originais publicados de 2013-2023. Dados foram extraídos de 89 estudos, analisados com estatística descritiva.

entre três e 15 especialistas (64% dos estudos) participaram. A avaliação do atributo propriedade ocorreu em dispositivos digitais, não digitais, sistemas de gestão, equipamentos (93,1%, 94,2%, 60%, 33,3%, respectivamente), do atributo custo-efetividade, em medicamentos (60%), e do atributo utilidade, em procedimentos médico-cirúrgicos (31,6%). A participação foi online em dispositivos digitais e não digitais (53% e 52%, respectivamente), presencial, em equipamentos (77,7%), e mista, nas demais tipologias.

é necessário estruturar a avaliação de acordo com as características específicas da tipologia de tecnologia, fornecendo insights para implementação de inovações nesse setor.