VP66 Perception Of Decision Makers And Researchers Towards Health Technology Assessment In Ghana

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 179-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Addo ◽  
Jane Hall ◽  
Stephen Goodall ◽  
Marion Haas
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Health System ◽  
Human Resource ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Human Data ◽  
Effective Manner

INTRODUCTION:In recent years, the Ghana health system has been faced with the challenge of financial sustainability. New ways of making decisions in a cost-effective manner that ensure efficient use of available resources is being explored. Consequently, Ghana has been pursuing the formal introduction of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) for decision making in the health system.However, the limited use and impact of HTA on health systems has been associated with reasons including, and not restricted to, the knowledge and perception of decision makers towards it (1-3). Therefore as Ghana gears towards using HTA formally, it is important to assess the knowledge and attitude of potential users and producers of HTA. This will provide useful information for the setting up of an HTA agency.METHODS:A qualitative research approach using in-depth interviews was utilized. Twenty-three decision makers both at the national and district levels, and four researchers were interviewed. Thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo software.RESULTS:Only seven respondents had knowledge about HTA. Respondents perceived HTA differently, and the word ‘technology’, was often misconstrued as a device for communication such as mobile phone. Two main barriers to the use of HTA emerged; lack of resources (human, data, and finance) and politico-cultural issues. To address these barriers respondents recommended that stakeholders be involved in decisions concerning the guidelines for its conduct, composition of the appraisal team, and the focus of HTA. Generating of human, data and financial resources were also indicated.CONCLUSIONS:There is paucity of knowledge about HTA in Ghana. For Ghana to successfully introduce HTA for health decision making and realize its expected benefits, there will be a need to address the perceived barriers in a comprehensive manner. Also, to mitigate data and human resource barrier, Ghana will have to examine the available local data and human resource to build on.

Hard choices: Reflections from the tomb of the unknown patient

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 288-292
Author(s):  
Christopher McCabe ◽  
Jeff Round
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Health System ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Access To Healthcare ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Fixed Costs

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) has always sought to incorporate the evidence of all patients affected in the decision-making process. While health system budgets could increase to cover costs of new technologies, the relevant patients are those benefitting from access to the technology being appraised. More recently, with health system budgets effectively fixed, costs of new technologies are covered by displacing other, currently funded care. This reallocation means the patients affected by the decision include those whose healthcare is displaced. These patients are typically unidentified, however, and so HTA in this instance involves choosing between identified and unidentified patients. We argue that HTA should take account of identifiability bias in this decision-making, to avoid promoting inequitable and inefficient access to healthcare.

scholarly journals Breaking up is hard to do: why disinvestment in medical technology is harder than investment

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Haas ◽  
Jane Hall ◽  
Rosalie Viney ◽  
Gisselle Gallego
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Healthcare Interventions ◽  
Practice Variations ◽  
The Right

Healthcare technology is a two-edged sword - it offers new and better treatment to a wider range of people and, at the same time, is a major driver of increasing costs in health systems. Many countries have developed sophisticated systems of health technology assessment (HTA) to inform decisions about new investments in new healthcare interventions. In this paper, we question whether HTA is also the appropriate framework for guiding or informing disinvestment decisions. In exploring the issues related to disinvestment, we first discuss the various HTA frameworks which have been suggested as a means of encouraging or facilitating disinvestment. We then describe available means of identifying candidates for disinvestment (comparative effectiveness research, clinical practice variations, clinical practice guidelines) and for implementing the disinvestment process (program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) and related techniques). In considering the possible reasons for the lack of progress in active disinvestment, we suggest that HTA is not the right framework as disinvestment involves a different decision making context. The key to disinvestment is not just what to stop doing but how to make it happen - that is, decision makers need to be aware of funding disincentives. What is known about this topic? Disinvestment is an increasingly popular topic amongst academics and policy makers. Most discussions focus on the need to increase disinvestment as a corollary of investment, the lack of overt disinvestment decisions and the use of a framework based on health technology assessment (HTA) to implement disinvestment. What does this paper add? This paper focusses on the difficulties associated with deciding which technologies to disinvest in, and the problems in using an HTA framework to make such decisions, when disinvestment involves a different decision making context from that of investment. What are the implications for practitioners? The key to disinvestment is not just what to stop doing but how to implement such decisions. Making it happen means being aware of funding disincentives.

PP495 Addressing The Interactions Between Health Regulation And Health Technology Assessment In Brazil

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 38-38
Author(s):  
Maíra Catharina Ramos ◽  
Margarete Martins de Oliveira ◽  
Erica Tatiane da Silva ◽  
Daniella Cristina Rodrigues Pereira ◽  
Flávia Tavares da Silva Elias
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Health System ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Essential Medicines ◽  
Regulatory Interaction ◽  
Unified Health System ◽  
Post Marketing

IntroductionThe interaction of health technology assessment (HTA) and health regulatory agencies has been widespread, especially for decision-making in health system coverage. The objective of this paper is to report the HTA-regulatory interaction in Brazil.MethodsThis is a case study on the interaction between HTA and regulation in Brazil. Technical documents and Brazilian legislation on health regulation and HTA were analyzed. The study was conducted in July 2019.ResultsHTA-Regulatory Interaction in Brazil is still incipient. There is no responsible agency for interaction between agencies, as there is in Europe and Canada, for example. In the last 4 years, cooperation has started between the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) and the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz) for post-registration monitoring of medicines. During this partnership, 170 post-marketing drug opinions were prepared, assisting the regulatory agency in decision-making.ConclusionsBrazil legislation guarantees essential medicines at low cost or free. The interaction between HTA and regulation has the potential to reduce the time taken to incorporate technology to the patient, in addition to ensuring greater safety for users of the Unified Health System. In this sense, it was observed that the interaction between health regulation and science and technology institutions has innovative potential in this approach.

OP318 Health Technology Assessment And Decision-Making Processes: The Purchase Of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technology

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (S1) ◽  
pp. 13-13
Author(s):  
Maria Maia
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Decision Making Processes

IntroductionMedical devices play an essential role in health care, but they are also a leading causes of increasing healthcare expenditures. The purchase of technologies and the determination of how and when they should be used are among the most important decisions made by decision-makers, at the institutional level.The present research focuses on the Portuguese health system and sheds light on the characterization of decision-making process by those involved in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) purchases.MethodsTo characterize the decision-making process, results from forty questionnaires and twenty-seven semi-structured interviews with key decision-makers were merged, using a mixed method approach. To assess competences for decision-making, a questionnaire was applied, and Exploratory and Confirmatory Factorial Analysis conducted.ResultsCost and suppliers’ characteristics are seen as the most important indicators to guide decisions. The decision is undertaken by a committee, in a bottom-up process, characterized by a bounded rationality, influenced by intuition and a consultant decision-maker. The reasoning and justification for selection of the committee members is unclear. The decision process is considered to be bureaucratic, time-consuming and long. Patients are negatively perceived as stakeholders in the process. Few studies were performed (mostly related to the workload of the Radiology Department) to support the decision and no national or international health technology assessment (HTA) study was used in the process, to guide decisions. Decision-makers have limited knowledge and training in areas of decision-making in the areas of health informatics, health economics and especially HTA. This may limit their ability to truly understand the future implications of their purchase decisions.ConclusionsTo foster HTA in decision-making processes, recommendations are made, in particular, to: (i) establish an HTA in-house unit, able to carry out studies considering the hospital context and aiming to inform managerial local decisions (ii) promote a team comprised of technology assessment multidisciplinary researchers but also professionals from the health institution able to carry out HTA studies (iii) foster common languages and values to increase uptake of HTA studies.

OP102 Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis In The Field Of Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 38-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrey Avdeyev ◽  
Adlet Tabarov ◽  
Amir Akhetov ◽  
Nasrulla Shanazarov ◽  
Aigul Kaptagayeva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Multiple Criteria ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis ◽  
Managerial Decision ◽  
Managerial Decision Making ◽  
Health Technologies

Introduction:One of the main tools for Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HB HTA) is the preparation of a mini-health technology assessment (HTA) report. Despite the high value of the results of mini-HTA reports for hospital decision-makers, the classical mini-HTA report does not allow a direct comparison of several health technologies among themselves.Methods:Based on the analysis of international experience of using the principles of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in the field of HB HTA, we created and approved our own managerial decision-making model which includes five standardized multiple criteria. The value (weight) of each criterion was defined as the arithmetic mean obtained as a result of interviewing hospital decision-makers and an HTA expert group.Results:Five standardized multiple criteria were included in the structure of our mini-HTA report. These criteria presented the main results of assessment of the viability of implementing new health technologies (HTs) in hospital practice and contain the following: i) Novelty/innovation; ii) Comparative clinical effectiveness and safety; iii) Relevance (demand); iv) Economic effectiveness; and, v) Payback period. We conducted the modeling of various options of HTA results by using multiple criteria, which allowed us to determine the threshold values of the evaluated HTs corresponding to their priority for implementation: i) High priority - HTs are recommended for implementation; ii) Medium priority - HTs can be recommended only if there are sufficient financial resources in hospital; and, iii) Low priority - HTs may be recommended only if there are strong reasons for their need.Conclusions:Integration of the principles of MCDA in the structure of mini-HTA reports gives the opportunity to i) make comparative assessments of implementing new health technologies based on standardized criteria; ii) determine the priority for implementation of newly evaluated health technologies; iii) avoid the influence of subjective factors on the managerial decision-making in hospitals.

PP159 Making Health Technology Assessment A Common Language In Controversies: A Hidden Role For The National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 128-129
Author(s):  
Jeong-eun Park ◽  
Min Ji Lee ◽  
Eunkyo Park ◽  
Miseong Kim ◽  
Jooyeon Park
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Common Language ◽  
Deliberative Process ◽  
Evidence Based Healthcare

Introduction:In order to improve research planning it is critical to understand how decision makers have used previous health technology assessment (HTA) results, and what expectations policy makers and health professionals have in HTA programs. In this study, we aimed to examine how HTA results have been used by decision makers, and explore complex relationships between the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) and various decision-making bodies in Korea.Methods:Three areas of healthcare decision in which NECA has been extensively involved were selected: prevention programs, single technology reimbursement, and clinical guidelines. We conducted in-depth interviews with two or three key informants from decision making bodies in each selected area. The interview participants included clinicians and government officials. We also conducted interviews with the researchers who participated in the related research to better capture the context. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.Results:Eight interviews with decision makers and five interviews with researchers were conducted and analyzed. Three main themes were revealed in the data. Firstly, it was revealed that NECA was primarily expected to be an intermediary between clinicians and government. Both government and clinicians had referred to NECA's HTA results, which are expected to be scientific and impartial, when they need to reach one another on controversial topics. Secondly, there was a high need for deliberative process to resolve the conflicting interests regarding HTA results. Lastly, they wanted the HTA process to be more responsive to fast changing healthcare environments by introducing a form of rapid review.Conclusions:Lack of effective communication channels between government and healthcare providers in Korea has made a room for HTA to be a common language for both sides. It is time to give up the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to conducting HTA research and tailor the research process to various needs of decision makers.

RESPONSIVENESS, LANGUAGE, AND ALIGNMENT: REFLECTIONS ON SOME CHALLENGES FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 223-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Dillon
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
New Technology ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Right

Health systems around the world cope with the challenge of difficult economic times, and the value of health technology assessment (HTA) is increasing. Making the right choices, with limited resources, in the face of increasingly complex technologies requires decisions informed by data and analyses that help us to manage the risks involved. Those who undertake and use HTA can play a greater role in helping decision makers meet these challenges; they need to think how to define innovation and respond to it, how to communicate their analyses, and, critically, how to align their work with the ambitions of their health systems. HTA can become a key health system enabler without compromising its objectivity or independence. It can say that it is too early to determine the value of a new technology when the data simply will not support a safe decision. However, it can also be bold and recommend the managed introduction of new technologies, even when the when the data is immature, provided that the health system understands the risks and there is a plausible case for believing that further research will support the value proposition. The goal for HTA is to be able confidently to do both.

The ‘Top 10’ Challenges for Health Technology Assessment: INAHTA Viewpoint

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian O'Rourke ◽  
Sophie Söderholm Werkö ◽  
Tracy Merlin ◽  
Li Ying Huang ◽  
Tara Schuller
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Health System ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
The Many ◽  
National Governments

The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) spans the globe as a network of 50 publicly-funded health technology assessment (HTA) agencies supporting health system decision making for 1.4 billion people in thirty countries. Agency members are non-profit HTA organizations that are part of, or directly support, regional or national governments. Recently, INAHTA surveyed its members to gather perspectives from agency leadership on the most important issues in HTA today. This paper describes the top 10 challenges identified by INAHTA members. Addressing these challenges requires a call for action from INAHTA member agencies and the many other actors involved in the HTA ecosystem. In opening this call for action, INAHTA will lead the way; however, a comprehensive undertaking from all players is needed to effectively address these challenges and to continue to evolve HTA in its role as a strong and effective contributor to health systems.

SUPPORTING DECISION MAKING IN CROSS-BORDER REGIONS: A HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR HOSPITALS

2012 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saskia Knies ◽  
Gloria Lombardi ◽  
Matt Commers ◽  
Hans-Peter Dauben ◽  
Silvia Evers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Decision Tool ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Border Regions ◽  
Cross Border

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop an health technology assessment (HTA) decision tool to support the decision-making process on health technologies for hospital decision makers in cross-border regions.Methods: Several methods were used to collect information necessary to develop the cross-border mini-HTA decision tool. The literature was inventoried on HTA in border regions and local settings and the use of HTA by local decision makers. Semi-structured interviews with hospital decision makers in cross-border regions were also performed. Based on group discussion of the resulting information, it was decided to use the Danish mini-HTA guideline as a starting point for development of the decision tool. After finishing the first version of the decision tool it was tested in two pilot studiesResults: Some questions in the Danish mini-HTA guideline were not relevant. Other questions needed rephrasing and questions about cross-border situations were added. The pilots showed several missing topics, including legal questions and reimbursement issues. The final decision tool consists of three sections: a general section, a section for hospitals not cooperating cross-border and a section for hospitals that are cooperating with hospitals across a national or regional border.Conclusions: Based on our literature search, this may be the first cross-border mini-HTA decision tool. The decision tool will be of help for healthcare professionals and decision makers in border settings who would like to use HTA evidence to support their decision-making process.

IMPACT OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS ON HOSPITAL DECISION MAKERS – 10-YEAR INSIGHT FROM A HOSPITAL UNIT IN SHERBROOKE, CANADA: IMPACT OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON HOSPITAL DECISIONS

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Poder ◽  
Christian A. Bellemare ◽  
Suzanne K. Bédard ◽  
Jean-François Fisette ◽  
Pierre Dagenais
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Contextual Factors ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Hospital Unit ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Process Factors ◽  
The Impact

Objectives:The overarching goal of this research was to (i) evaluate the impact of reports with recommendations provided by a hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) unit on the local hospital decision-making processes and implementation activities and (ii) identify the underlying factors of the nonimplementation of recommendations.Methods:All reports produced by the HB-HTA unit between December 2003 and March 2013 were retrieved, and hospital decision makers who requested these reports were solicited for enrolment. Participants were interviewed using a mixed design survey.Results:Twenty reports, associated with fifteen decision makers, fulfilled the study criteria. Nine decision makers accepted to participate, corresponding to thirteen reports and twenty-three recommendations. Of the twenty-three recommendations issued, 65 percent were implemented, 9 percent were accepted for implementation but not implemented, and 26 percent were declined. In terms of the utility of each report to guide decision makers, 92 percent of the reports were considered in the decision-making process; 85 percent had one or more recommendations adopted; and 77 percent had recommendations implemented. The most frequently mentioned reasons for nonimplementation were related to contextual factors (64 percent), production/diffusion process factors (14 percent), content/format factors (14 percent), or other factors (9 percent). Among the contextual factors, the complexity of the changes (i.e., administrative reasons), budget and resources constraints, failure to identify administrative responsibility to carry out the recommendation, and nonpriority status of the HTA recommendation, were provided.Conclusions:This study highlights that although HB-HTA reports are useful to hospital managers in their decision-making processes, certain barriers such as contextual factors need to be better addressed to improve HB-HTA efficiency and usefulness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document