A collaborative pilot on current awareness alerts for disinvestment and horizon scanning

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vigdis Lauvrak ◽  
Rosmin Esmail ◽  
Anna Lien Espeland ◽  
Kelly Farrah ◽  
Elisabet Hafstad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Horizon Scanning ◽  
Pubmed Search

Abstract Objective In 2019, members of the Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) Interest Group for Disinvestment and Early Awareness (DEA-IG) and the HTAi Interest Group for Information Retrieval (IR-IG) agreed to produce quarterly current awareness alerts for members of the DEA-IG. The purpose was to pilot a predefined strategy for sharing new publications on methods and topical issues in this area. Methods Literature search strategies for PubMed and Google were developed. Retrieved citations were posted on the DEA-IG Web site. Members of the DEA-IG received an email notification when new alerts were available. An informal survey of the DEA-IG members was used to provide feedback after the pilot. Results Six alerts were issued during the pilot (June 2019–September 2020) with a total of 170 citations. The bulk of the information were 124 PubMed indexed citations, and of these, 96 were retrieved by the PubMed search strategies. Google searches were not found to be useful, but ongoing horizon scanning work at the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) provided additional information. Based on retrospective sorting, we considered thirty-five PubMed citations to be highly relevant for health technology assessment (HTA). The response rate to the survey was limited (seventeen respondents), but most respondents found the alerts useful for their work. Conclusions The results of this pilot project can be used to revise search strategies and information sources, improve the relevance of the alerts, and plan for expanded dissemination strategies.

scholarly journals Challenges in Research and Health Technology Assessment of Rare Disease Technologies: Report of the ISPOR Rare Disease Special Interest Group

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 493-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Nestler-Parr ◽  
Daria Korchagina ◽  
Mondher Toumi ◽  
Chris L. Pashos ◽  
Christopher Blanchette ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Rare Disease ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Special Interest ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Special Interest Group

scholarly journals SOME ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS ON FORTHCOMING AMENDMENTS TO HTA IN POLAND

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 358-359
Author(s):  
Anna Zawada
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Additional Information

In reference to the article A Decade of Health Technology Assessment in Poland by I. Lipska et al. (1), I would like to provide you with some comments and additional information on the changes in reimbursement policies in the Polish healthcare system currently taking place, which is likely to lead to increased number of health technology assessments (HTAs) of medical devices (MDs).

OP105 Factors Affecting Horizon Scanning For Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 25-26
Author(s):  
Anastasia Chalkidou ◽  
Jamie Erskine ◽  
Thomas Macmillan ◽  
Stephen Keevil
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Capital Investment ◽  
Service Management ◽  
Imaging System ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Expert Elicitation ◽  
Equal Weight ◽  
Horizon Scanning ◽  
Eos Imaging

IntroductionThe strategic MedTech investment for the expansion of a central London paediatric hospital must sustain its ambitions to remain a state-of-the-art hospital, whilst implementing recent and future MedTech innovations and taking into account spatial and financial limitations. Horizon scanning (HS) is an important health technology assessment (HTA) tool to achieve these goals. To this end, we developed a methodology to help decide the suitability of investing in the following imaging-based MedTech: a hybrid theatre incorporating a biplane, intra-operative MRI (iMRI), multi-detector computed tomography (CT) scanners, and an EOS imaging system and predict the complementary technologies required for the decade to come. These technologies not only require adequate spatial resources but a significant upfront capital investment.MethodsThree sources of information were used: i) a literature search, selected journals and other horizon scanning resources that examined current efficiency, safety, and cost-effectiveness for the proposed technologies, ii) expert elicitation in the form of user-group meetings and one-to-one discussions with clinical and service management teams and iii) hospital data consisting of audit and information from capital equipment bids.ResultsWith the exception of limited comparative data on iMRI (mainly including adults), little evidence exists to support investment in the proposed technologies. However, the decision of whether to adopt these technologies was influenced not only by existing evidence on the proposed technologies and associated cost but other factors such as local disease burdens, hospital staff requirements (training, expertise), space requirements for the new MedTech, and its impact on organizing healthcare services and hospital workflows. Complementary technologies associated with radiation monitoring image visualization and control were identified.ConclusionsStrategic MedTech investment requires a holistic approach that assigns equal weight to information arising by expert elicitation and hospital audit data with existing literature evidence. The decision for adoption is heavily influenced by the clinical expertise and hospital workflows.

OP83 Thinking Explicitly About Ethical Issues In Health Technology Assessment: Lessons From The Canadian Agency For Drugs And Technologies In Health

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 30-31
Author(s):  
Ken Bond ◽  
Katherine Duthie
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Dna Mismatch ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Obstructive Sleep ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Explicit Analysis ◽  
End Stage

Introduction:While methods for ethics analysis in health technology assessment (HTA) exist, there have been relatively few applications and assessments of these methods. The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) began to include an explicit analysis of ethical issues within its HTAs in 2015. To examine some of the differences among ethics analyses, we critically compared the conduct and contribution of the analysis of ethical issues for four CADTH HTAs.Methods:Two experts in ethics in HTA examined ethics analyses conducted by CADTH for four technologies: DNA mismatch repair testing for colorectal cancer, treatments for obstructive sleep apnea, dialysis for end-stage liver disease, and human papillomavirus screening for cervical cancer. The methods of analysis and presentation of results, extent to which the ethics analysis was used in committee deliberations was gathered via meeting notes, recommendation documents, and discussion, and were summarized narratively.Results:The amount of literature explicitly discussing ethical issues pertaining to particular technologies varied and was not predicted by the age and maturity of a technology. The axiological approach proved a helpful starting point for ethical reflection, but other methods were used for analysis and presentation. Explicit discussion of ethical issues identified the need for additional information to ensure robust deliberation. Committee members expressed the belief that ethics analysis “brought together” individual sections of the HTA.Conclusions:While many methods exist for ethics analysis, ethics expertise is required to identify and explicitly discuss the complete range of ethical issues relevant to a particular HTA. Ethics analyses create space to challenge assumptions underlying the clinical and economic evidence, raise issues about the value of technologies, and help to integrate the HTA results.

scholarly journals WHICH DATABASES SHOULD BE USED TO IDENTIFY STUDIES FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS?

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 547-554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mick Arber ◽  
Julie Glanville ◽  
Jaana Isojarvi ◽  
Erin Baragula ◽  
Mary Edwards ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Mean Sensitivity

Objectives:This study investigated which databases and which combinations of databases should be used to identify economic evaluations (EEs) to inform systematic reviews. It also investigated the characteristics of studies not identified in database searches and evaluated the success of MEDLINE search strategies used within typical reviews in retrieving EEs in MEDLINE.Methods:A quasi-gold standard (QGS) set of EEs was collected from reviews of EEs. The number of QGS records found in nine databases was calculated and the most efficient combination of databases was determined. The number and characteristics of QGS records not retrieved from the databases were collected. Reproducible MEDLINE strategies from the reviews were rerun to calculate the sensitivity and precision for each strategy in finding QGS records.Results:The QGS comprised 351 records. Across all databases, 337/351 (96 percent) QGS records were identified. Embase yielded the most records (314; 89 percent). Four databases were needed to retrieve all 337 references: Embase + Health Technology Assessment database + (MEDLINE or PubMed) + Scopus. Four percent (14/351) of records could not be found in any database. Twenty-nine of forty-one (71 percent) reviews reported a reproducible MEDLINE strategy. Ten of twenty-nine (34.5 percent) of the strategies missed at least one QGS record in MEDLINE. Across all twenty-nine MEDLINE searches, 25/143 records were missed (17.5 percent). Mean sensitivity was 89 percent and mean precision was 1.6 percent.Conclusions:Searching beyond key databases for published EEs may be inefficient, providing the search strategies in those key databases are adequately sensitive. Additional search approaches should be used to identify unpublished evidence (grey literature).

scholarly journals WHAT’S IN A NAME? DEVELOPING DEFINITIONS FOR COMMON HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PRODUCT TYPES OF THE INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF AGENCIES FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (INAHTA)

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 430-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy Merlin ◽  
David Tamblyn ◽  
Benjamin Ellery ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Product Type ◽  
Product Label ◽  
International Network ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
Final Agreement ◽  
Mapping Exercise

Objectives: A mapping exercise was undertaken to determine how HTA is being described and conducted across the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), with the aim of harmonizing terminologies and approaches.Methods: Three progressive surveys were undertaken. In 2010, INAHTA agencies were asked to provide details on all of their HTA products. In 2013, additional information was sought on key methodological characteristics of five of the most common HTA product types. Subsequently, final agreement was sought on three proposed product types.Results: Forty-five HTA agencies responded to at least one of the surveys. In 2010, twenty-one agencies reported publishing over seventy named HTA products. Core domains associated with full HTA reports were reported by a third of agencies but were labeled differently, so products were classified according to product type (n = 17). Agencies producing short, tailored products increased between 2010 and 2013, with the publication of rapid reviews doubling from 33 percent to 66 percent. In 2013, half of the agencies adapted their common HTA products from documents produced by other agencies. A consensus (>70 percent) was achieved on definitions for HTA reports, mini-HTAs, and rapid reviews.Conclusions: The product label for an HTA is not always indicative of its content. Terminology has, therefore, been agreed to make explicit the trade-off between rigor and timeliness in three common HTA product types. An INAHTA Product Type (IPT) Mark has been created to identify each of these. It is hoped this will further facilitate HTA adaptation between agencies and reduce duplication of effort.

scholarly journals Internal evaluation of the European network for Health Technology Assessment project

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (S2) ◽  
pp. 99-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lise Lund Håheim ◽  
Iñaki Imaz ◽  
Marlène Läubli Loud ◽  
Teresa Gasparetto ◽  
Jesús González-Enriquez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
Solid Base ◽  
European Network ◽  
Work Package ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Internal Evaluation ◽  
Additional Information

Objectives: The internal evaluation studied the development of the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Project in achieving the general objective of establishing an effective and a sustainable network of health technology assessment (HTA) in Europe.Methods: The Work Package 3 group was dedicated to this task and performed the work. Information on activities during the project was collected from three sources. First, three yearly cross-sectional studies surveyed the participants’ opinions. Responses were by individuals or by institutions. The last round included surveys to the Steering Committee, the Stakeholder Forum, and the Secretariat. Second, the Work Package Lead Partners were interviewed bi-annually, five times in total, to update the information on the Project's progress. Third, additional information was sought in available documents.Results: The organizational structure remained stable. The Project succeeded in developing tools aimed at providing common methodology with intent to establish a standard of conducting and reporting HTA and to facilitate greater collaboration among agencies. The participants/agencies expressed their belief in a network and in maintaining local/national autonomy. The Work Package Leaders expressed a strong belief in the solid base of the Project for a future network on which to build, but were aware of the need for funding and governmental support.Conclusions: Participants and Work Package Leaders have expressed support for a future network that will improve national and international collaboration in HTA based on the experience from the EUnetHTA project.

Primary data collection in health technology assessment

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle L. McIsaac ◽  
Ron Goeree ◽  
James M. Brophy
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Information Need ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

This study discusses the value of primary data collection as part of health technology assessment (HTA). Primary data collection can help reduce uncertainty in HTA and better inform evidence-based decision making. However, methodological issues such as choosing appropriate study design and practical concerns such as the value of collecting additional information need to be addressed. The authors emphasize the conditions required for successful primary data collection in HTA: experienced researchers, sufficient funding, and coordination among stakeholders, government, and researchers. The authors conclude that, under specific conditions, primary data collection is a worthwhile endeavor in the HTA process.

OP484 Analysis Of Horizon Scanning Outputs For The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Health Technology Assessment Process

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (S1) ◽  
pp. 10-11
Author(s):  
Sarah Khalid Khan ◽  
Sonia Garcia Gonzalez Moral ◽  
Dapo Ogunbayo ◽  
Dawn Craig
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Influencing Factor ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Time Duration ◽  
Horizon Scanning ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Health Technology Assessment Process

IntroductionThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Innovation Observatory (NIHRIO) is the national Horizon Scanning (HS) organization in England, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is its key health technology assessment (HTA) stakeholder. NIHRIO has a remit to notify NICE of innovative technologies with a time horizon of three years prior to regulatory approval in the European Union (EU)/United Kingdom (UK). The notification process produces an initial ‘filtration form’ followed by a ‘technology briefing’ produced 17–20 months prior to licence for those technologies that NICE will consider for appraisal. Since April 2017, NIHRIO has produced ~400 technology briefings. We present an analysis of how this has fed into the NICE HTA process so far.MethodsThe analysis mapped NIHRIO's technology briefings (April 2017 – June 2020) with relevant NICE technology appraisal/highly specialized technologies (TA/HST) guidance during the time period. The analysis followed the timeline of technologies from identification during the horizon scanning process to filtration to briefing submission to NICE and entering the TA/HST process to outcome/recommendation given by NICE.ResultsUntil June 2020, 496 technology briefings entered the NICE TA/HST scoping process. Forty per cent are in progress, four per cent have had a TA/HST recommendation and three per cent that entered the NICE TA/HST scoping process did not complete it. On average it took less time from briefing submission to NICE recommendation for cancer indications. The time from discovery to NICE recommendation ranged from 115 months to 22 months.ConclusionsHS for TA/HST is a lengthy process from identification to final recommendation and there is considerable variation in time duration from identification to briefing submission to NICE recommendation. Average time taken from briefing submission to NICE recommendation is shorter for cancer indications and repurposed medicines. A full TA/HST may not be recommended for all technology briefings, rather they may update existing guidance or find different routes of evaluation. Technologies that enter the TA/HST scoping process might be terminated, suspended or discontinued for several reasons which may include lack of company engagement, change in development or regulatory plans by the company. Timely notification is key in achieving TA/HST recommendation at the time of market authorization but not the only influencing factor.

scholarly journals CHANGING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PARADIGMS?

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 191-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don Husereau ◽  
Chris Henshall ◽  
Laura Sampietro-Colom ◽  
Sarah Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Stakeholder Engagement ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Horizon Scanning ◽  
Scientific Dialogue ◽  
Technology Lifecycle ◽  
Multi Stakeholder

Objectives: Health technology assessment (HTA) has to innovate to best support changing health system environments and to help provide access to valuable innovation under fiscal constraint.Methods: Issues associated with changing HTA paradigms were identified through scoping and explored through deliberation at a meeting of industry and HTA leaders.Results: Five broad areas of change (engagement, scientific dialogue, research prioritization, adaptive approaches, and real world data) were identified. The meeting focused on two themes derived from these: re-thinking scientific dialogue and multi-stakeholder engagement, and re-thinking value, affordability, and access. Earlier and ongoing engagement to steer the innovation process and help achieve appropriate use across the technology lifecycle was perceived as important but would be resource intensive and would require priority setting. Patients need to be involved throughout, and particularly at the early stages. Further discussion is needed on the type of body best suited to convening the dialogue required. There was agreement that HTA must continue to assess value, but views differed on the role that HTA should play in assessing affordability and on appropriate responses to challenges around affordability. Enhanced horizon scanning could play an important role in preparing for significant future investments.Conclusions: Early and ongoing multi-stakeholder engagement and revisiting approaches to valuing innovation are required. Questions remain as to the most appropriate role for HTA bodies. Changing HTA paradigms extend HTA's traditional remit of being responsive to decision-makers demands to being more proactive and considering whole system value.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document