scholarly journals Announcing the New Definition of Health Technology Assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 824-825
Author(s):  
Brian O’Rourke ◽  
Wija Oortwijn ◽  
Tara Schuller
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Definition Of Health ◽  
Definition Of

scholarly journals The new definition of health technology assessment: A milestone in international collaboration

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 187-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian O'Rourke ◽  
Wija Oortwijn ◽  
Tara Schuller ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
International Collaboration ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Task Group ◽  
Global Organizations ◽  
Joint Task ◽  
International Joint ◽  
Definition Of Health ◽  
Definition Of

BackgroundAn international joint task group co-led by the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) has developed a new and internationally accepted definition of HTA.MethodsThe task group, consisting of representatives of leading HTA networks, societies and global organizations, developed guiding principles for the process and followed an established consultation plan with the broader HTA community to develop the definition.ResultsThe consensus achieved by the international joint task group brings the collective weight of the participating networks, societies, and organizations behind the new definition.ConclusionThe new definition of HTA is an historic achievement and it is offered to the current and emerging HTA world as a cornerstone reference for today and into the future.

Redefining health technology assessment in Canada: Diversification of products and contextualization of findings

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascale Lehoux ◽  
Stéphanie Tailliez ◽  
Jean-Louis Denis ◽  
Myriam Hivon
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Chief Executive Officers ◽  
Social Issues ◽  
Chief Executive ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Informational Basis ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Executive Officers

Objectives:While strategies for enhancing the dissemination and impact of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) are now being increasingly examined, the characteristics of HTA production have received less attention.Methods:This study presents the results of a content analysis of the HTA documents (n=187) produced by six Canadian agencies from 1995 to 2001, supplemented by interviews with chief executive officers and researchers (n=40). The goal of this analysis was to characterize the agencies' portfolios and to analyze the challenges these agencies face in responding to the increased demand for HTA.Results:On average, thirty HTA products were issued annually by the agencies. While the bulk of documents produced were full HTA reports (76 percent), two agencies showed significant diversification in their products. Three agencies in particular actively supported the publication of results in scientific journals. Three agencies showed evidence of adapting to different institutional environments by specializing in certain areas (drugs, health services). Overall, a significant portion of the agencies' HTAs contained data on costs (37 percent) and effectiveness (48 percent), whereas ethical and social issues were rarely addressed (17 percent). Most agencies addressed issues and outcomes that did not strictly fall under the typical definition of HTA but that increased the “contextualization” of their findings.Conclusions:Our discussion highlights four paradoxes and reflects further on challenges raised by the coordination of HTA within large countries and among European states. This study concludes that HTA is being redefined in Canada as HTA agencies offer a more contextualized informational basis, an approach that may prove more compatible with the increased demand for HTA.

Evidence-Based Practice Center network and health technology assessment in the United States: Bridging the cultural gap

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Sarría-Santamera ◽  
David B. Matchar ◽  
Emma V. Westermann-Clark ◽  
Meenal B. Patwardhan
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Healthcare Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Is Integration ◽  
Definition Of

Objectives:The purpose of this study was to identify the Evidence-Based Practice Center (EPC) network participants' perceptions of the characteristics of the EPC process and the relationship of the process to the success of EPC reports.Methods:Semistructured interviews were conducted with the three groups involved in the EPC: EPC staff, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) staff, and representatives of partner organizations.Results:The analysis of the coded transcripts revealed three related major themes, which form the conceptual basis for the interpretation presented here: the definition of a successful report, the determinants of a successful report, and the role of AHRQ in the process.Conclusions:A successful report is a report that is used. The ultimate success of the core health technology assessment objective, moving from research to policy, depends on balancing two values: excellence and relevance. Our findings are consistent with the “two communities thesis,” which postulates the existence of two camps that confer different values to excellence and relevance, with resulting tension. A promising model for approaching this tension is integration or collaboration, which requires linking researchers and policy makers, promoting productive dialogues about the formulation and timing of analysis, and early consideration of how the resulting analysis will be used. This effort suggests that actively blurring the frontiers between these two groups will enhance their interaction. Furthermore, enhancing the role of the AHRQ as scientific broker will maximize the potential of the EPC network.

Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment

2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henk ten Have
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Medical Technology ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Minor Role ◽  
Engineering Model ◽  
Ethical Aspects ◽  
A Value ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
A Minor

This study analyses why ethical aspects play a minor role in health technology assessment (HTA) studies, even when comprehensive approaches of technology assessment are advocated. Technology is often regarded as a value-neutral tool. At the same time, bioethics is dominated by an engineering model. Ethical contributions to evaluation of medical technology should go beyond issues of application in clinical practice and focus also on the definition of problems, the demarcation of technical and nontechnical issues, and the morally problematic implications of technologies.

Defining capacity building in the context of HTA: a proposal by the HTAi Scientific Development and Capacity Building Committee

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 362-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franz Pichler ◽  
Wija Oortwijn ◽  
Alric Ruether ◽  
Rebecca Trowman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Capacity Building ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Scientific Development ◽  
Multiple Stakeholders ◽  
Building Activities ◽  
Definition Of

AbstractObjectivesTo develop a definition of “capacity building” relevant to Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi).MethodsA review of capacity building activities undertaken by HTAi members, members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), and regional HTA networks was compared against general literature on capacity building definitions and frameworks. The findings were reviewed by the HTAi Scientific Development and Capacity Building Committee. Furthermore, the Executive Committee and Interest Groups of HTAi provided input on the draft final paper.ResultsThe literature demonstrated the need for a definition of capacity building specific to HTA. In the context of HTAi, it was necessary for the definition to cover (i) the broadest range of HTA-related activities, (ii) multiple stakeholders involved in the HTA process, and (iii) the spectrum of activities that compose capacity building. We propose the following definition of HTA capacity building: The process by which individuals and organizations develop or strengthen abilities related to understanding, providing input to, conducting, or utilizing HTA for health policy and decision making, as well as, developing awareness and support in the environment within which HTA is being used.ConclusionA definition of HTA-related capacity building that was intended to provide clarity about what this term means to HTAi was developed. As HTA is context-dependent, a need for further work to develop an operationalization “menu” relevant to the specific needs in which HTA is being used was identified.

Commentary on the article “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions”

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (03) ◽  
pp. 366-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Neuhauser
Keyword(s):  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
To Come ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Allocation Decisions ◽  
Resource Allocation Decisions

“Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessment for resource allocation decisions.” The title says it all. I am amazed that such a summary is even possible and that it defines this field so well. Perhaps this report will be cited for years to come as the best and central definition of HTA. A field like this can be defined in other ways.

OP114 The Public's Role In Understanding The Value Of Health Technologies

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 43-44
Author(s):  
Tania Stafinski ◽  
Jackie Street ◽  
Devidas Menon
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Informed Decision ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Definition Of

Introduction:Increasingly, health technology assessment (HTA) organizations have instituted mechanisms for involving patients in assessment and review processes. The reasons are obvious—to understand the “patient experience” with a disease and to ensure that patient perspectives are considered during deliberations about the value of new treatments. More recently there have been efforts to engage the public in HTAs and HTA-informed decision-making processes. However, the goals of these efforts have not been well articulated. This may be attributable to the lack of a shared definition of “the public”. The objective of this study was to develop a common understanding of the term “the public” within the context of HTA.Methods:The following were conducted: a survey of HTA organizations; a systematic review; consultation with Health Technology Assessment international's Special Interest Group on Patient and Citizen Involvement; and a workshop comprising representatives from patient organizations, industry, and HTA bodies in Canada.Results:In many HTA processes, the terms “public” and “patients” are synonymous. Definitions found in scholarly articles vary and depend on the rationale for involving the public in a particular issue. Through consultations it became clear that, in the context of HTA, the definition depends on understanding what is missing from current deliberations around the value of new health technologies. There was consensus among workshop participants that: (i) “patients” and “the public” are not the same; (ii) the role of the public may be to ensure societal values are reflected in HTAs and HTA-informed decision-making processes (e.g. serving an audit function); and (iii) a legitimate definition of “the public” could be: “A non-aligned community member with no commercial or professional interest in the HTA process who is not a patient or member of a stakeholder group”.Conclusions:Consensus on the use of the terms “patient” and “public” will support rigorous, evidence-based public and patient engagement in HTA. The proposed definition indicates a way forward in this debate.

scholarly journals Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (02) ◽  
pp. 133-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amber Watt ◽  
Alun Cameron ◽  
Lana Sturm ◽  
Timothy Lathlean ◽  
Wendy Babidge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Survey Tool ◽  
Program Evaluations ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Objectives:This review assessed current practice in the preparation of rapid reviews by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations, both internationally and in the Australian context, and evaluated the available peer-reviewed literature pertaining to the methodology used in the preparation of these reviews.Methods:A survey tool was developed and distributed to a total of fifty International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) members and other selected HTA organizations. Data on a broad range of themes related to the conduct of rapid reviews were collated, discussed narratively, and subjected to simple statistical analysis where appropriate. Systematic searches of the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Australian Medical Index were undertaken in March 2007 to identify literature pertaining to rapid review methodology. Comparative studies, guidelines, program evaluations, methods studies, commentaries, and surveys were considered for inclusion.Results:Twenty-three surveys were returned (46 percent), with eighteen agencies reporting on thirty-six rapid review products. Axiomatic trends were identified, but there was little cohesion between organizations regarding the contents, methods, and definition of a rapid review. The twelve studies identified by the systematic literature search did not specifically address the methodology underpinning rapid review; rather, many highlighted the complexity of the area. Authors suggested restricted research questions and truncated search strategies as methods to limit the time taken to complete a review.Conclusions:Rather than developing a formalized methodology by which to conduct rapid reviews, agencies should work toward increasing the transparency of the methods used for each review. It is perhaps the appropriate use, not the appropriate methodology, of a rapid review that requires future consideration.

DEFINING INNOVATION WITH RESPECT TO NEW MEDICINES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW FROM A PAYER PERSPECTIVE

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 224-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oriol de Solà-Morales ◽  
David Cunningham ◽  
Mathias Flume ◽  
Paul M. Overton ◽  
Natalie Shalet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Therapeutic Benefit ◽  
Societal Factors ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Definition Of

Objectives:The aim of this study was to investigate how innovation is defined with respect to new medicines.Methods:MEDLINE, Embase, and EconLit databases were searched for articles published between January 1, 2010 and May 25, 2016 that described a relevant definition of innovation. Identified definitions were analyzed by mapping the concepts described onto a set of ten dimensions of innovation.Results:In total, thirty-six articles were included, and described a total of twenty-five different definitions of innovation. The most commonly occurring dimension was therapeutic benefit, with novelty and the availability of existing treatments the second and third most common dimensions. Overall, there was little agreement in the published literature on what characteristics of new medicines constitute rewardable innovation.Conclusions:Alignment across countries and among regulators, health technology assessment bodies and payers would help manufacturers define research policies that can drive innovation, but may be challenging, as judgements about what aspects of innovation should be rewarded vary among stakeholders, and depend on political and societal factors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document