Table 1.

List of papers included in the scoping literature review.

Publication	Objective
Facey et al. (16)	To outline key concepts for complementary ways in which HTAs could be strengthened by taking account of patients' perspectives.
Fonsdal et al. (17)	To analyse systematic reviews which considered implementation and monitoring strategies to optimize technology uptake and use, and the implications of such strategies for HTA used in decision-making processe and ways how to engage patients in the process.
Gangon et al. (18)	To review the international experience of patient and public involvement in the field of HTA.
Menon and Stafinski (19)	To analyse findings from peer-reviewed and “gray” literature, and discussions with key informants to determine potential roles for patients and the public in HTA and coverage decision-making and existing roles for both groups in jurisdictions.
Danner et al. (20)	To introduce the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a patient preference elicitation method in HTA.
Gangon et al. (21)	To (1) validate a reference framework for exploring the relevance and applicability of various models of patient involvement in HTA, (2) implement strategies that involve patients (including close relatives and representatives) at different stages of the HTA process, (3) evaluate intervention processes, and (4) explore the impact of these interventions on (a) the applicability and acceptability of recommendations arising from the assessment, (b) patient satisfaction, and (c) the sustainability of this approach in HTA.
Cavazza and Jommi (22)	To investigate stakeholder involvement by HTA Organizations in France, Spain, England and Wales, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands and to examine factors this involvement depends on.
Drummond et al. (23)	To explore approaches in terms of both policy and methods in engaging patients and public and other different perspectives in assessing the added value of health technologies.
Haley et al. (14)	To obtain further information from members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) on the involvement of consumers in their programs.
Gagnon et al. (24)	To (1) set up interventions to promote patient participation in three stages of the HTA process: identification of HTA topics, prioritization, and development of the assessment plan of the topic prioritized; and (2) assess the impact of patient participation on the relevance of the topics suggested, the prioritization process, and the assessment plan from the point of view of patients and other groups involved in HTA.
Mühlbacher, (25)	The paper stipulates that decision criteria must be relevant to the patient. Patients might value different clinical end points differently. The paradigm of patient centeredness aims to ensure that the interests of patients are adequately taken into account. Therefore, patient segmentation is the key to patient-centered healthcare systems. Patient-centric health technology assessment must inform decision makers about patients' preferences.
Dipankui et al. (26)	To evaluate two patient involvement strategies (consultation and direct participation) in the assessment of alternative measures to restraint and seclusion among adults in short-term hospital wards (in psychiatry) and long-term care facilities for the elderly.
Abelson et al. (27)	To describe the development and outputs of a comprehensive framework for involving the public and patients in a government agency's HTA process.
Husereau et al. (28)	Innovation in health technology assessment (HTA) is needed to support changing health system environments and to help provide access to valuable innovation under fiscal constraint. The objective of the paper is to identify through scoping and explored through deliberation at a meeting of industry and HTA leaders.
Hämeen-Anttila et al. (29)	To discover ways to involve patients in HTA and clinical practice guidelines processes, to describe challenges, and to find ways of informing patients about HTAs and CPGs in Finland.
Iskrov and Stefanov (30)	To analyse what needs to be done in the proves of public health reimbursement decision-making through the perspective of patients and other stakeholders.
Weeks et al. (31)	To advance understanding of the range of evaluation strategies adopted by HTA organizations and their potential usefulness through the perspective of Health Technology Assessment International's (HTAi's) Patient and Citizen Involvement Group (PCIG).
Wortley et al. (32)	To describe community views and perspectives on public engagement processes in Australian HTA decision making.
Iskrov et al. (33)	Authors aim to provide solutions for optimisation of assessment and appraisal of new rare disease therapies is a fundamental issue in rare disease health policy through establishment of consensus-building tools to foster cooperation and collaboration through consensus-building tools (e.g., focus group discussion).
Addario et al. (34)	To explore the varying definitions of patient value and make positive recommendations for working together to strengthen the patient voice in this area.
Scott and Wale (35)	To analyse through a survey the views of patient advocates who were members of patient organizations known to be engaged in the process of HTA or evidence-based practice.
Wale et al. (36)	To provide arguments why patient involvement should be prioritized by those HTA agencies that do not yet involve patients: (1) from a patients' rights perspective, (2) based on patient and community values, (3) centering on evidentiary contributions, and (4) from a methodological perspective.
Facey et al. (37)	To analyse how the needs, preferences and experiences of the patients could be used to support decision making.
Simpson et al. (38)	With this paper authors aim to report on the experiences, benefits, and challenges of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) from a publicly funded early awareness and alert (EAA) system in the United Kingdom through identification, filtration, prioritization, early assessment, and dissemination.
Boudes et al. (39)	To analyze through qualitative survey the stakeholder expectations on patient engagement in medicines development and during the life cycle of a product.
Hunter et al. (1)	To analyse the formal publication of the HTA guidance text with discussion about recent progress in, and continuing barriers to, patient involvement in HTA.
Janssens et al. (40)	To identify barriers for transitioning patient involvement from theory to practice in the lifecycle of medicines.
Paradigm, (41)	To provide perspectives from HTA organizations on the potential to develop patient involvement in Early Dialogue/Scientific Advice processes.
Littlejohns et al. (42)	To analyse the framework of multidisciplinary collaboration in England and in New Zealand using a mixed-methods approach in terms of finding possible solutions on how to engage the competence of the representatives from the different organizations included in the process.
Wilking et al. (43)	To analyse how early and regular dialogue between all stakeholders including regulators, payers, patient stakeholders and industry is required to improve the situation could facilitate decision making in access to oncology therapies.
Babac et al. (44)	To examine whether patient perspectives are considered as part of early benefit assessments for rare diseases and how patient perspectives are methodologically elicited and presented.
Single et al. (3)	To promote further discussion about the ways in which patient involvement can impact HTAs, studying particular cases in-depth, using stories told by people who lead the practice in HTA bodies.
Wale and Sullivan (45)	To explore how written and oral patient involvement in two HTAs was reported on in publicly available final recommendations and discussion summaries of appraisal committees from three HTA bodies. The authors aimed to gain insights into how patient input was utilized by appraisal committees to better understand the goals of patient involvement and how these are being achieved.
Paradigm, (46)	To have a common framework that enables structured, effective, meaningful, ethical, innovative, and sustainable patient engagement and demonstrates the “return on engagement” for all players.