Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:08:57.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

THE CONCEPT OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Views of Applicants to Funding of HTA Projects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2001

Mette Lange
Affiliation:
Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment
Torben Jørgensen
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark - Odense University
Finn Børlum Kristensen
Affiliation:
Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment
Staffan Stilvén
Affiliation:
Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to analyze the perception of the content of health technology assessment (HTA) among health professionals applying for a state grant of DKK 10 million.

Methods: A total of 113 applications were received and analyzed. When conducting the analysis, it was assumed that the applicants' maximum five-page project description would reflect: a) the applicants' perception of what an HTA is; b) how the assessment was to be conducted; and c) what the results were going to be used for.

Results: More than 40% of all applications focused on treatment; in 51% only one or two professional groups were to be involved (thus interdisciplinarity was questionable); only 22% of the HTA cases were intended to form the basis for political/administrative decisions; in general, the HTAs were planned far less comprehensively than was relevant; 76% of the projects did not include a formal synthesis phase; 41% intended to use diffusion as the only method for publication of the HTA result.

Conclusions: The analysis reveals several areas where DIHTA has to make an effort in order to secure that HTA in fact constitutes a comprehensive and well-documented basis for decision making. These areas concern the following topics: multidisciplinarity, the objective of HTA, comprehensiveness, the synthesis phase, and publication and utilization of the HTA result.

Type
RESEARCH NOTES
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press

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.)