Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T13:40:35.460Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence-Based Practice Center network and health technology assessment in the United States: Bridging the cultural gap

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2006

Antonio Sarría-Santamera ,
David B. Matchar ,
Emma V. Westermann-Clark  and
Meenal B. Patwardhan
Antonio Sarría-Santamera
Affiliation:
Spanish Agency for Health Technology Assessment
David B. Matchar
Affiliation:
Duke University
Emma V. Westermann-Clark
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Meenal B. Patwardhan
Affiliation:
Duke University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify the Evidence-Based Practice Center (EPC) network participants' perceptions of the characteristics of the EPC process and the relationship of the process to the success of EPC reports.

Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with the three groups involved in the EPC: EPC staff, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) staff, and representatives of partner organizations.

Results: The analysis of the coded transcripts revealed three related major themes, which form the conceptual basis for the interpretation presented here: the definition of a successful report, the determinants of a successful report, and the role of AHRQ in the process.

Conclusions: A successful report is a report that is used. The ultimate success of the core health technology assessment objective, moving from research to policy, depends on balancing two values: excellence and relevance. Our findings are consistent with the “two communities thesis,” which postulates the existence of two camps that confer different values to excellence and relevance, with resulting tension. A promising model for approaching this tension is integration or collaboration, which requires linking researchers and policy makers, promoting productive dialogues about the formulation and timing of analysis, and early consideration of how the resulting analysis will be used. This effort suggests that actively blurring the frontiers between these two groups will enhance their interaction. Furthermore, enhancing the role of the AHRQ as scientific broker will maximize the potential of the EPC network.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentUnited StatesQualitative researchOrganization and administrationDecision making
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 33 - 38
Copyright
© 2006 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.)

References

Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. 2005. A study of the impact of 2000-2001 HTA products. Information Paper #11. January, 2002. Available at: http://www.ahfmr.ab.ca/publications.html. Updated June 13, 2005. Accessed July 12
Banta HD, Andreasen PB. 1990 The political dimension in health care technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 6: 115– 123.Google Scholar
Battista RN, Lance JM, Lehoux P, Regnier G. 1999 Health technology assessment and the regulation of medical devices and procedures in Quebec: Synergy, collusion, or collision? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 15: 593– 601.Google Scholar
Bensing JM, Caris-Verhallen WM, Dekker J, Delnoij DM, Groenewegen PP. 2003 Doing the right thing and doing it right: Toward a framework for assessing the policy relevance of health services research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 19: 604– 612.Google Scholar
Busenberg GJ. 1999 Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy. Policy Sci. 32: 1– 11.Google Scholar
2005. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. If research is the answer, what is the question? Key steps to turn decision-maker issues into research questions. Proceedings of the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation Annual Workshop. 2001. Available at: www.chsrf.ca/knowledge_transfer/pdf/research_e.pdf. Updated 2001. Accessed July 12
Denis JL, Lomas J. 2003 Convergent evolution: The academic and policy roots of collaborative research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 8 (Suppl 2): 1– 6.Google Scholar
Eisenberg JM, Zarin D. 2002 Health technology assessment in the United States. Past, present, and future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 18: 192– 198.Google Scholar
Fox NJ. 2003 Practice-based evidence: Towards collaborative and transgressive research. Sociology. 37: 81– 102.Google Scholar
Frenk J. 1992 Balancing relevance and excellence: Organizational responses to link research with decision making. Soc Sci Med. 35: 1397– 1404.Google Scholar
Landry R, Amara N, Ouimet M. 2002. Research transfer in natural sciences and engineering: Evidence from Canadian universities. Quebec, Canada: Université Laval; Available at: http://kuuc.chair.ulaval.ca/francais/pdf/csrng.pdf. Updated October 2002. Accessed July 12 2005.
Lavis JN, Ross SE, Hurley JE, et al. 2002 Examining the role of health services research in public policymaking. Milbank Q. 80: 125– 154.Google Scholar
Lilford R, Jecock R, Shaw H, Chard J, Morrison B. 1999 Commissioning health services research: An iterative method. J Health Serv Res Policy. 4: 164– 167.Google Scholar
Lomas J. 2000 Connecting research and policy. ISUMA-Can J Policy Res. 1: 140– 144.Google Scholar
Oliver A, Mossialos E, Robinson R. 2004 Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 1– 10.Google Scholar
Plouffe LA. 2000 Explaining the gaps between research and policy. ISUMA-Can J Policy Res. 1: 135– 139.Google Scholar
Stern PC, Fineberg HV, eds. 1996. Understanding risk. Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press;
von Below GC, Boer A, Conde-Olasagasti JL, et al. 2002 Health technology assessment in policy and practice. Working group 6 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 18: 447– 455.Google Scholar
Walshe K, Rundall TG. 2001 Evidence-based management: From theory to practice in health care. Milbank Q. 79: 429– 458.Google Scholar