Unni Gopinathan
1* 
, Trygve Ottersen
1, Pascale-Renée Cyr
2, Kalipso Chalkidou
3,4 1 Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
2 Department of Community Medicine and Global Health, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
3 Global Health Development Group, Imperial College London School of Public Health, London, UK.
4 Center for Global Development Europe, London, UK.
Abstract
This comment reflects on an article by Oortwijn, Jansen, and Baltussen about the use and features of ‘evidence-informed deliberative processes’ (EDPs) among health technology assessment (HTA) agencies around the world and the need for more guidance. First, we highlight procedural aspects that are relevant across key steps of EDP, focusing on conflict of interest, the different roles of stakeholders throughout a HTA and public justification of decisions. Second, we discuss new knowledge and models needed to maximize the value of deliberative processes at the expanding frontiers of HTA, paying special attention to when HTA is applied in primary care, employed for public health interventions, and is produced through international collaboration.