Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T05:46:05.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EUnetHTA INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: DEVELOPMENT AND LESSONS LEARNED

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2015

Patrice X. Chalon Open the ORCID record for Patrice X. Chalon [Opens in a new window]  and
Peter Kraemer
Patrice X. Chalon
Affiliation:
Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) [email protected]
Peter Kraemer
Affiliation:
Deutsches Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DIMDI) [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the techniques used in achieving consensus on common standards to be implemented in the EUnetHTA Information Management System (IMS); and to describe how interoperability between tools was explored.

Methods: Three face to face meetings were organized to identify and agree on common standards to the development of online tools. Two tools were created to demonstrate the added value of implementing interoperability standards at local levels. Developers of tools outside EUnetHTA were identified and contacted.

Results: Four common standards have been agreed on by consensus; and consequently all EUnetHTA tools have been modified or designed accordingly. RDF Site Summary (RSS) has demonstrated a good potential to support rapid dissemination of HTA information. Contacts outside EUnetHTA resulted in direct collaboration (HTA glossary, HTAi Vortal), evaluation of options for interoperability between tools (CRD HTA database) or a formal framework to prepare cooperation on concrete projects (INAHTA projects database).

Conclusions: While being entitled a project on IT infrastructure, the work program was also about people. When having to agree on complex topics, fostering a cohesive group dynamic and hosting face to face meetings brings added value and enhances understanding between partners. The adoption of widespread standards enhanced the homogeneity of the EUnetHTA tools and should thus contribute to their wider use, therefore, to the general objective of EUnetHTA. The initiatives on interoperability of systems need to be developed further to support a general interoperable information system that could benefit the whole HTA community.

Keywords

Information systemsInternational collaborationEUnetHTA
Type
Theme Submissions
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 5 , November 2014 , pp. 514 - 520
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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. Kristensen, FB. Development of European HTA: From vision to EUnetHTA. Michael. 2012;9:147–156.Google Scholar
2. Warmuth, M. EUnetHTA POP db: The EUnetHTA Planned and Ongoing Projects Database, content and use. 9th HTAi Annual Meeting. Bilbao, Spain: HTAi; 2012.Google Scholar
3. Quentin, F, Carbonneil, C, Moty-Monnereau, C, et al. Web-based toolkit to facilitate European collaboration on evidence generation on promising health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009; 25 (Suppl 2):68–74.Google Scholar
4. EUnetHTA Joint Action 1 (2010–2012). http://www.eunethta.eu/activities/eunethta-joint-action-2010-12/eunethta-joint-action-2010-12 (accessed March 4, 2014).Google Scholar
5. Chalon, P, Kraemer, P, EUnetHTA, JA. WP6 Partners. Common standards for EUnetHTA tools. Report. Brussels: EUnetHTA; 2011.Google Scholar
6. DCMI Usage Board. DCMI Metadata Terms. [Webpage] 2010-10-11 [cited 2013–08–29]. http://dublincore.org/documents/2010/10/11/dcmi-terms/ (accessed August 29, 2013).Google Scholar
7. Goedertier, S. SEMIC - Semantic Interoperability Community. [Webpage] 2011–06–01 [cited 2013–08–29]. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/semic/description (accessed August 29, 2013).Google Scholar
8. Allgurin Neikter, S, EUnetHTA Project WP2. EUnetHTA graphical guide. Copenhagen: EUnetHTA; 2006.Google Scholar
9. Office of Communications and Public Liaison. Medical Subject Headings (MESH®) Fact Sheet. [Webpage] 2012 2012–11–28 [cited 2013 -08–29]. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/mesh.html (accessed August 29, 2013).Google Scholar
10. O’Connor, D, Green, S, Higgins, JP. 5 Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In: Higgins, JP, Green, S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011:83–94.Google Scholar
11. HONSelect. [Webpage] 2008–03–05 [cited 2013–08–29]. http://www.hon.ch/HONselect/ (accessed August 29, 2013).Google Scholar
12. Sermersheim, J, Network Working Group. Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): The Protocol. [Webpage] 2006 [cited 2013–08–29]. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4511 (accessed August 29, 2013).Google Scholar
13. Fung-Kee-Fung, M, Boushey, RP, Morash, R. Exploring a “community of practice” methodology as a regional platform for large-scale collaboration in cancer surgery-the Ottawa approach. Curr Oncol. 2014;21:13–18.Google Scholar
14. So, H-J, Brush, TA. Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Comput Educ. 2008;51:318–336.Google Scholar
15. Kirkman, BL, Rosen, B, Tesluk, PE, Gibson, CB. The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Acad Manage J. 2004;47:175–192.Google Scholar
16. Bonk, CJ, Olson, TM, Wisher, RA, Orvis, KL. Learning from focus groups: An examination of blended learning. Int J E-Learn Distance Educ. 2002;17:97–118.Google Scholar
17. Powell, RA, Single, HM. Focus groups. Int J Quality Health Care. 1996;8:499–504.Google Scholar
18. Lenner, P, Lundgren, E, Damber, L. Clinico-pathologic correlation in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. III. Biologic significance of a modified Lukes and Collins classification. Acta Radiol Oncol Radiat Phys Biol. 1979;18:544–553.Google Scholar
19. Mancini, F, Sousa, FS, Teixeira, FO, et al. Use of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) in Portuguese for categorizing web-based healthcare content. J Biomed Inform. 2011;44 (2):299–309.Google Scholar
20. Pereira, S, Neveol, A, Kerdelhue, G, et al. Using multi-terminology indexing for the assignment of MeSH descriptors to health resources in a French online catalogue. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008:586–590.Google Scholar
21. Maggio, LA, Bresnahan, M, Flynn, DB, et al. A case study: Using social tagging to engage students in learning Medical Subject Headings. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009;97:77–83.Google Scholar
22. Nielsen, J. Usability 101: Introduction to usability. 2012–01–04 [cited 2014–03–11]. http://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-usability/ (accessed March 11, 2014).Google Scholar
23. Guegan, E, Cook, A. Internal evaluation report. Southampton: NIHR Evaluation Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC); 2013.Google Scholar
24. Mavergames, C. Introducing the Cochrane Informatics and Knowledge Management Department (IKMD). [Webpage] 2014–02–13 [cited 2014– 03–11]. http://tech.cochrane.org/news/introducing-cochrane-informatics-and-knowledge-management-department-ikmd (accessed March 11, 2014).Google Scholar
25. Chalon, PX. Standards to enhance interoperability of information systems and efficiency of information exchange. 7th HTAi Annual Meeting. Dublin, Ireland; 2010.Google Scholar
26. Jakobsson, A. Establishing an institutional repository: A step by step approach. 10th European Conference of Medical and Health Libraries. Cluj, Romania; 2006.Google Scholar
27. Vlayen, J, Chalon, PX. Searching electronic sources. KCE Process Book [Webpage] 2012 [cited 2013–09–19]. http://processbook.kce.fgov.be/?q=node/14 (accessed September 19, 2013).Google Scholar
28. Straus, S, Tetroe, J, Graham, ID. Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.Google Scholar