Premium
A qualitative study of the relationship between the S cottish M edicines C onsortium and their clinical experts
Author(s) -
Newham Rosemary,
Corcoran Emma Dunlop,
Dear James W.,
Hems Sharon,
McTaggart Stuart,
Bennie Marion
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/jep.12325
Subject(s) - thematic analysis , timeline , context (archaeology) , health care , remuneration , flexibility (engineering) , negotiation , medicine , process (computing) , psychology , nursing , qualitative research , knowledge management , medical education , business , management , sociology , computer science , political science , paleontology , social science , archaeology , biology , law , history , finance , economics , operating system
Rationale, aims and objectives Internationally, health technology assessments ( HTA s) are ubiquitous drivers to health policy. Within S cotland, the S cottish M edicines C onsortium undertakes the medicine review process. Input from clinical experts, involved in frontline care, is an integral component of the assessment process. This paper explores the relationship between the clinical experts and the HTA agency within S cotland to better understand what motivates expert clinicians to devote their time to the medicine review process with no remuneration. Methods Twenty‐seven clinical experts from 16 different clinical specialties took part in one‐to‐one interviews at their place of work between O ctober 2011 and M arch 2012. Data analysis was inductive and comprised the organization of data into a framework and a subsequent thematic analysis. Results Three distinct themes were identified: (1) recruitment, which identified two types of explanations for the experts' appointment: external justification (nominated by another) and internal justification (being recognized as an expert); (2) flexibility of the procedures, with experts able to determine their own response style and negotiate timelines; (3) health care systems, demonstrating that their affiliation to the health system underpinned the relationship and their motivation to be clinical experts. Conclusions The findings of this study provide insight into the elements important to clinicians who voluntarily contribute to HTA processes. Examination of these elements in the context of the organizational citizenship behavior literature provides a foundation on which to improve understanding of this relationship and sustain and improve clinical expert participation in an increasingly intensified clinical environment and within cash‐limited HTA systems.