Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:58:45.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASSESSING THE INTERNATIONAL USE OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS: EXPLORING THE MERITS OF DIFFERENT METHODS WHEN APPLIED TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH RESEARCH HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (NIHR HTA) PROGRAMME

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2013

David Wright ,
Ruairidh Milne ,
Alison Price  and
Nicola Tose
David Wright
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), Alpha House, University of Southampton
Ruairidh Milne
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), Alpha House, University of Southampton
Alison Price
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), Alpha House, University of Southampton
Nicola Tose
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC), Alpha House, University of Southampton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: This study presents findings from a study that explores the merits of different methods for assessing the international use of UK funded research by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme.

Methods: The study adopted an exploratory approach and used three core methods: (i) Academic use was explored through bibliometric and citation analysis of the top ten most cited health technology assessment (HTA) reports. (ii) Internet use was assessed using Webtrends software to identify the proportion of international visits of the top ten most downloaded HTA reports from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2010. (iii) International HTA use was assessed by searching the Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) HTA database to explore the citation of NIHR HTA reports in reports by non-UK HTA agencies.

Results: Bibliometric analysis identified published output and international citations with 41 percent of the 549 journals citing NIHR HTA reports being based in the United States. Nine of ten most downloaded reports from the NIHR HTA Web site (www.hta.ac.uk) had in excess of 50 percent of visits outside the United Kingdom. Four of five selected NIHR HTA reports were cited in twenty-eight other HTA reports, eighteen of these outside the United Kingdom.

Conclusions: Assessing international use is important when exploring the uptake of research evidence. Methods used in identifying research impact, such as bibliometrics and Webtrends, are helpful in generating evidence of international use. HTA agencies should consider these techniques and international use when assessing the uptake of findings from research they undertake and/or commission.

Keywords

Technology assessmentResearch methodsUtilizationBibliometrics
Type
POLICIES
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 192 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Hanney, S, Buxton, M, Green, C, Coulson, D, Raftery, J. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11 (53):1–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Druss, BG, Marcus, SC. Tracking publication outcomes of National Institutes of Health grants. Am J Med. 2005;118:658–663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Ward, V, House, A, Hamer, S. Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;1:156–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Buxton, M, Hanney, S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1:35–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Hanney, S, Frame, I, Grant, J, et al.Using categorisations of citations when assessing the outcomes from health research. Scientometrics. 2005;65:357–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Hailey, D. A preliminary survey on the influence of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:415–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Campbell, DM, Redman, S, Jorm, L, et al.Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: practice and views of policy makers and researchers. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2009;6:21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Ritter, A. How do drug policy makers access research evidence? Int J Drug Policy. 2009;20:70–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Turner, S, Adams, N, Cook, A, Price, A, Milne, R. Potential benefits of using a toolkit developed to aid in the adaptation of HTA reports: A case study considering positron emission tomography (PET) and Hodgkin's disease. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Chen, Y-F, Jobanputra, P, Barton, P, et al.A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults and an economic evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. Health Technol Assess. 2006; 10 (42):1–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Dinnes, J, Deeks, J, Kunst, H, et al.A systematic review of rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of tuberculosis infection. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11 (3):1–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Hobbs, FDR, Thorpe, GH, Delaney, BC, et al.A review of near patient testing in primary care. Health Technol Assess. 1997;1 (5):1–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Murphy, E, Dingwall, R, Greatbatch, D, Parker, S, Watson, P. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2 (16):1–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.McColl, E, Jacoby, A, Thomas, L, et al.Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5 (31):1–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Avenell, A, Broom, J, Brown, TJ, et al.Systematic review of the long-term effects and economic consequences of treatments for obesity and implications for health improvement. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8 (21):1–194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Seif, G, Trope, G. Impact of 10 years of glaucoma research funding: The Glaucoma Research Society of Canada. Can J Ophthalmol. 2010;45:132–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Wallin, JA. Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2005;97:261–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Wald, NJ, Rodeck, C, Hackshaw, AK, et al.First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down's syndrome: The results of the Serum, Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS). Health Technol Assess. 2003;7 (11):1–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Ward, S, Lloyd Jones, M, Pandor, A, et al.A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11 (14):1–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Hoare, C, Li Wan Po, A, Williams, H. Systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4 (37):1–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.O'Meara, S, Cullum, N, Majid, M, Sheldon, T. Systematic reviews of wound care management: (3) antimicrobial agents for chronic wounds; (4) diabetic foot ulceration. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4 (21):1–237.Google Scholar