scholarly journals Implementing evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment: a low income country perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lydia Kapiriri ◽  
Rob Baltussen ◽  
Wija Oortwijn
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Income Country ◽  
Deliberative Process ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Low Income Country ◽  
Deliberative Processes

AbstractThe purpose of this paper is to discuss the potential feasibility and utility of evidence-informed deliberative processes (EPDs) in low income country (LIC) contexts. EDPs are implemented in high and middle income countries and thought to improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of decisions informed by health technology assessment (HTA). Together these would ultimately improve the legitimacy of any decision making process. We argue—based on our previous work and in light of the priority setting literature—that EDPs are relevant and feasible within LICs. The extreme lack of resources necessitates making tough decisions which may mean depriving populations of potentially valuable health technologies. It is critical that the decisions and the decision making bodies are perceived as fair and legitimate by the people that are most affected by the decisions. EDPs are well aligned with the political infrastructure in some LICs, which encourages public participation in decision making. Furthermore, many countries are committed to evidence-informed decision making. However, the application of EDPs may be hampered by the limited availability of evidence of good quality, lack of interest in transparency and accountability (in some LICs), limited capacity to conduct HTA, as well as limited time and financial resources to invest in a deliberative process. While EDPs would potentially benefit many LICs, mitigating the identified potential barriers would strengthen their applicability. We believe that implementation studies in LICs, documenting the contextualized enablers and barriers will facilitate the development of context specific improvement strategies for EDPs.

scholarly journals Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wija Oortwijn ◽  
Maarten Jansen ◽  
Rob Baltussen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Contextual Factors ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Appraisal Committee ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Deliberative Processes

Background: Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were recently introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes towards more legitimate decision-making. The EDP framework provides guidance that covers the HTA process, ie, contextual factors, installation of an appraisal committee, selecting health technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, and communication and appeal. The aims of this study were to identify the level of use of EDPs by HTA agencies, identify their needs for guidance, and to learn about best practices. Methods: A questionnaire for an online survey was developed based on the EDP framework, consisting of elements that reflect each part of the framework. The survey was sent to members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Two weeks following the invitation, a reminder was sent. The data collection took place between September-December 2018. Results: Contact persons from 27 member agencies filled out the survey (response rate: 54%), of which 25 completed all questions. We found that contextual factors to support HTA development and the critical elements regarding conducting and reporting on HTA are overall in place. Respondents indicated that guidance was needed for specific elements related to selecting technologies and criteria, appraisal, and communication and appeal. With regard to best practices, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, UK) were most often mentioned. Conclusion: This is the first survey among HTA agencies regarding the use of EDPs and provides useful information for further developing a practical guide for HTA agencies around the globe. The results could support HTA agencies in improving their processes towards more legitimate decision-making, as they could serve as a baseline measurement for future monitoring and evaluation.

scholarly journals The concept of multi-criteria analysis of decision-making in the current system of health technology assessment in Russia

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 3-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. V. Omelyanovsky ◽  
V. K. Fedyaeva ◽  
N. Z. Musina
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Current System ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Assessment Methodology ◽  
Current Version ◽  
Health Technologies

In the article, we analyze the current version of Government Regulation No. 871 where the principles of health technologies assessment (HTA) and the reimbursement strategies in Russia have been put forward. We conclude that the HTA methodology in Russia is consistent with the multi-criteria decision analysis. Recommendations on the improvement of the assessment methodology in Regulation No. 871 are provided.

THE ROLE OF PATIENT DECISION-MAKING IN EVALUATING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESMENT (LITERATURE REVIEW)

Vestnik ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 315-323
Author(s):  
Л.К. Кошербаева ◽  
З.Р. Сагындыкова ◽  
Т.Б. Егеубаев
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Social Consequences ◽  
Patient Decision Making ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Giving Feedback

В условиях ограниченных бюджетов для современного здравоохранения рациональное потребление ресурсов является очень актуальной проблемой. Оценка технологий здравоохранения (ДСТБ) - комплексная оценка относительно доказанной клинической и клинико-экономической (фармаколого-экономической) эффективности и безопасности технологий здравоохранения, а также экономических, социальных и этических последствий их применения. Цель оценки технологий здравоохранения-одобрение заявленных технологий здравоохранения и включение заявленных технологий здравоохранения в перечень компенсации и информирование политиков в области здравоохранения. Следует ли применять здоровье сберегающую технологию, как ее применять и какую пользу от нее получают пациенты. Обучение экспертным знаниям о выживаемости, диагностике и лечении болезней и болезней, в том числе о методе оказания помощи (для анализа затрат и выгод), бремени болезней, выявлении пробелов в уходе, выявлении и удовлетворении потребностей. Предоставление отзывов о лечении (или отсутствии лечения и поддержки) социальных последствий заболевания способствует подходу пациентов, процессу принятия решений по мере необходимости. In the context of limited budgets for modern healthcare, rational resource consumption is a very urgent problem. Health Technology Assessment (OST) - a comprehensive assessment of the relatively proven clinical and clinical- economic (pharmacological-economic) effectiveness and safety of health technologies, as well as the economic, social and ethical consequences of their use. The purpose of the health technology assessment is to approve the claimed health technologies and include the claimed health technologies in the compensation list and inform health policy makers. It shows whether healthcare technology should be used or not, how it should be used, and how patients can benefit from it. Providing expert knowledge on the pain and burden of living, diagnosis and treatment, including the method of providing assistance (to analyze costs and benefits), the burden of diseases, identifying gaps in care, identifying and meeting needs. Giving feedback on the treatment (or lack of treatment and support) of the social consequences of the disease contributes to the decision-making process depending on the patient's attitude, needs.

scholarly journals Introducing health technology assessment in Tanzania

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gavin Surgey ◽  
Kalipso Chalkidou ◽  
William Reuben ◽  
Fatima Suleman ◽  
Jacqui Miot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Essential Medicines ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Decision Making Processes

AbstractObjectivesHealth technology assessment (HTA) is a cost-effective resource allocation tool in healthcare decision-making processes; however, its use is limited in low-income settings where countries fall short on both absorptive and technical capacity. This paper describes the journey of the introduction of HTA into decision-making processes through a case study revising the National Essential Medicines List (NEMLIT) in Tanzania. It draws lessons on establishing and strengthening transparent priority-setting processes, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsThe concept of HTA was introduced in Tanzania through revision of the NEMLIT by identifying a process for using HTA criteria and evidence-informed decision making. Training was given on using economic evidence for decision making, which was then put into practice for medicine selection for the NEMLIT. During the revision process, capacity-building workshops were held with reinforcing messages on HTA.ResultsBetween the period 2014 and 2018, HTA was introduced in Tanzania with a formal HTA committee being established and inaugurated followed by the successful completion and adoption of HTA into the NEMLIT revision process by the end of 2017. Consequently, the country is in the process of institutionalizing HTA for decision making and priority setting.ConclusionWhile the introduction of HTA process is country-specific, key lessons emerge that can provide an example to stakeholders in other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) wishing to introduce priority-setting processes into health decision making.

Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 334-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Facey ◽  
Antoine Boivin ◽  
Javier Gracia ◽  
Helle Ploug Hansen ◽  
Alessandra Lo Scalzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Deliberative Process ◽  
Quantitative Evidence ◽  
Research Engagement ◽  
Robust Evidence

There is increasing emphasis on providing patient-focused health care and ensuring patient involvement in the design of health services. As health technology assessment (HTA) is meant to be a multidisciplinary, wide-ranging policy analysis that informs decision making, it would be expected that patients’ views should be incorporated into the assessment. However, HTA is still driven by collection of quantitative evidence to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a health technology. Patients’ perspectives about their illness and the technology are rarely included, perhaps because they are seen as anecdotal, biased views. There are two distinct but complementary ways in which HTAs can be strengthened by: (i) gathering robust evidence about the patients’ perspectives, and (ii) ensuring effective engagement of patients in the HTA process from scoping, through evidence gathering, assessment of value, development of recommendations and dissemination of findings. Robust evidence eliciting patients’ perspectives can be obtained through social science research that is well conducted, critically appraised and carefully reported, either through meta-synthesis of existing studies or new primary research. Engagement with patients can occur at several levels and we propose that HTA should seek to support effective patient participation to create a fair deliberative process. This should allow two-way flow of information, so that the views of patients are obtained in a supportive way and fed into decision-making processes in a transparent manner.

scholarly journals Principles for deliberative processes in health technology assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 445-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Bond ◽  
Rebecca Stiffell ◽  
Daniel A. Ollendorf
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Group Discussion ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Deliberative Process ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Context Sensitive ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Deliberative Processes ◽  
Large Group Discussion

Deliberative processes are a well-established part of health technology assessment (HTA) programs in a number of high- and middle-income countries, and serve to combine complex sets of evidence, perspectives, and values to support open, transparent, and accountable decision making. Nevertheless, there is little documentation and research to inform the development of effective and efficient deliberative processes, and to evaluate their quality. This article summarizes the 2020 HTAi Global Policy Forum (GPF) discussion on deliberative processes in HTA.Through a combination of small and large group discussion and successive rounds of polling, the GPF members reached strong agreement on three core principles for deliberative processes in HTA: transparency, inclusivity, and impartiality. In addition, discussions revealed other important principles, such as respect, reviewability, consistency, and reasonableness, that may supplement the core set. A number of associated supporting actions for each of the principles are also described in order to make each principle realizable in a given HTA setting. The relative importance of the principles and actions are context-sensitive and must be considered in light of the political, legislative, and operational factors that may influence the functioning of any particular HTA environment within which the deliberative process is situated. The paper ends with suggested concrete next steps that HTA agencies, researchers, and stakeholders might take to move the field forward. The proposed principles and actions, and the next steps, provide a springboard for further research and better documentation of important aspects of deliberation that have historically been infrequently studied.

scholarly journals DEVELOPMENT OF THE ONTARIO DECISION FRAMEWORK: A VALUES BASED FRAMEWORK FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 290-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Murray Krahn ◽  
Fiona Miller ◽  
Ahmed Bayoumi ◽  
Ann-Sylvia Brooker ◽  
Frank Wagner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Optimal Decision ◽  
Decision Framework ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Decision Attributes

Objectives:In 2007, the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (OHTAC) developed a decision framework to guide decision making around nondrug health technologies. In 2012, OHTAC commissioned a revision of this framework to enhance its usability and deepen its conceptual and theoretical foundations.Methods:The committee overseeing this work used several methods: (a) a priori consensus on guiding principles, (b) a scoping review of decision attributes and processes used globally in health technology assessment (HTA), (c) presentations by methods experts and members of review committees, and (d) committee deliberations over a period of 3 years.Results:The committee adopted a multi-criteria decision-making approach, but rejected the formal use of multi-criteria decision analysis. Three broad categories of attributes were identified: (I) context criteria attributes included factors such as stakeholders, adoption pressures from neighboring jurisdictions, and potential conflicts of interest; (II) primary appraisal criteria attributes included (i) benefits and harms, (ii) economics, and (iii) patient-centered care; (III) feasibility criteria attributes included budget impact and organizational feasibility.Conclusion:The revised Ontario Decision Framework is similar in some respects to frameworks used in HTA worldwide. Its distinctive characteristics are that: it is based on an explicit set of social values; HTA paradigms (evidence based medicine, economics, and bioethics/social science) are used to aggregate decision attributes; and that it is rooted in a theoretical framework of optimal decision making, rather than one related to broad social goals, such as health or welfare maximization.

scholarly journals Resource allocation and health technology assessment in Australia: Views from the local level

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (02) ◽  
pp. 134-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gisselle Gallego ◽  
Kees van Gool ◽  
Dianne Kelleher
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Decision Making Processes

Objectives:Several studies have shown that a key determinant of successful health technology assessment (HTA) uptake is a clear, fair, and consistent decision-making process for the approval and introduction of health technologies. The aim of this study was to gauge healthcare providers' and managers' perceptions of local level decision making and determine whether these processes offer a conducive environment for HTA. An Area Health Service (AHS) aimed to use the results of this study to help design a new process of technology assessment and decision making.Methods:An online survey was sent to all health service managers and healthcare providers working in one AHS in Sydney, Australia. Questions related to perceptions of current health technology decisions in participants' own institution/facility and opinions on key criteria for successful decision-making processes.Results:Less than a third of participants agreed with the statements that local decision-making processes were appropriate, easy to understand, evidence-based, fair, or consistently applied. Decisions were reportedly largely influenced by total cost considerations as well as by the central state health departments and the Area executive.Conclusions:Although there are renewed initiatives in HTA in Australia, there is a risk that such investments will not be productive unless policy makers also examine the decision-making contexts within which HTA can successfully be implemented. The results of this survey show that this is especially true at the local level and that any HTA initiative should be accompanied by efforts to improve decision-making processes.

scholarly journals Health technology assessment in Finland

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (S1) ◽  
pp. 102-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marjukka Mäkelä ◽  
Risto P. Roine
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Special Responsibility ◽  
Made In

Since the 1990s, health policy makers in Finland have been supportive of evidence-based medicine and approaches to implement its results. The Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment (Finohta) has grown from a small start in 1995 to a medium-sized health technology assessment (HTA) agency, with special responsibility in providing assessments to underpin national policies in screening. External evaluations enhanced the rapid growth. In the Finnish environment, decision making on health technologies is extremely decentralized, so Finohta has developed some practical tools for implementing HTA findings. The Managed Uptake of Medical Methods program links the hospital districts to agree on introduction of technologies. The Ohtanen database provides Finnish-language summaries of major assessments made in other countries.

scholarly journals 3.L. Workshop: It’s time for timeliness in Health Technology Assessment

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Critical Issue ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Increasing Demand ◽  
Set Up

Abstract The timeliness of the release of results is one of the most critical issue regarding Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and its potential to support decision-making. This matter may reflect the deep conflict between HTA doers and users. HTA is a form of evidence-based research, expected to timely inform decision-making at several levels - from health policy (macro) to hospital and clinical management (meso and micro) - ensuring accuracy and assessment of both short- and long-term effects of a health technology. HTA purpose therefore is to respond to real world needs, while not overlook a correct methodology. Fast developing health technologies have rapidly spread over the past decades, hence increasing demand for timely assessment aimed at their prompt implementation and management, especially at meso and micro decisional levels. Furthermore, the need for quick answers is emphasized by the pressures placed on policy-makers when a health technology is publicly promoted or contested. Furthermore, an ill-timed assessment can lead to several consequences, among which possible inequalities in access to healthcare. In order to address the challenge of timeliness, organizations involved in HTA should set up models and tools to deliver timely information. The aim of this workshop is to point out the timeliness of HTA as crucial in the decision-making process as a mismanagement of HTA system could be an obstacle to an appropriate healthcare policy. Else more, the workshop would like to critically present examples where research was on time or too late to be included in the decision-making process and elaborate on possible models to successfully deal with timeliness of HTA deliverables in particular at hospital level. Key messages The timeframe of HTA should ensure the accuracy of information and of methodological and legal steps, without forgetting the timeliness of delivery. Models and instruments should be implemented in order to guarantee the timeliness of HTA reports.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document