Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:19:50.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INFLUENCE OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND ITS MEASUREMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2017

David Hailey ,
Sophie Werkö ,
Måns Rosén ,
Karen Macpherson ,
Susan Myles ,
Verónica Gallegos Rivero ,
Cecilia Hipólito-Olivares ,
Sinikka Sihvo ,
Jasmine Pwu  and
Wen-Wen Yang
...Show all authors
David Hailey
Affiliation:
University of Wollongong and Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional [email protected]
Sophie Werkö
Affiliation:
Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care
Måns Rosén
Affiliation:
Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care
Karen Macpherson
Affiliation:
Healthcare Improvement Scotland
Susan Myles
Affiliation:
Healthcare Improvement Scotland
Verónica Gallegos Rivero
Affiliation:
Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tecnologica en Salud
Cecilia Hipólito-Olivares
Affiliation:
Centro Nacional de Excelencia Tecnologica en Salud
Sinikka Sihvo
Affiliation:
Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment
Jasmine Pwu
Affiliation:
Center for Drug Evaluation, Taiwan
Wen-Wen Yang
Affiliation:
Center for Drug Evaluation, Taiwan
Yong-Chen Chen
Affiliation:
Center for Drug Evaluation, Taiwan
Ana Perez Galán
Affiliation:
Ministry of Public Health, Uruguay
Alicia Aleman
Affiliation:
Ministry of Public Health, Uruguay
Elena Villamil
Affiliation:
Ministry of Public Health, Uruguay
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to obtain information on methods used to measure health technology assessment (HTA) influence, decisions that were influenced, and outcomes linked to HTA.

Methods: Electronic databases were used to locate studies in which HTA influence had been demonstrated. Inclusion criteria were studies that reliably reported consideration by decision makers of HTA findings; comparative studies of technology use before and after HTA; and details of changes in policy, health outcomes, or research that could be credibly linked to an HTA.

Results: Fifty-one studies were selected for review. Settings were national (24), regional (12), both national and regional (3) hospitals (9), and multinational (3). The most common approach to appraisal of influence was review of policy or administrative decisions following HTA recommendations (51 percent). Eighteen studies (35 percent) reported interview or survey findings, thirteen (26 percent) reviewed administrative data, and six considered the influence of primary studies. Of 142 decisions informed by HTA, the most common types were on routine clinical practice (67 percent of studies), coverage (63 percent), and program operation (37 percent). The most frequent indications of HTA influence were on decisions related to resource allocation (59 percent), change in practice pattern (31 percent), and incorporation of HTA details in reference material (18 percent). Few publications assessed the contribution of HTA to changing patient outcomes.

Conclusions: The literature on HTA influence remains limited, with little on longer term effects on practice and outcomes. The reviewed publications indicated how HTA is being used in different settings and approaches to measuring its influence that might be more widely applied, such as surveys and monitoring administrative data.

Keywords

InfluenceImpactDecision makingHealth technology assessment
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 32 , Issue 6 , 2016 , pp. 376 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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. Hailey, D, Macpherson, K, Aleman, A, Bakri, R. The influence of Health Technology Assessment, a conceptual paper. INAHTA, 2014. Available from: http://www.inahta.org/hta-tools-resources/#conceptual (accessed February 6, 2016).Google Scholar
2. Gerhardus, A, Dintsios, CM. The impact of HTA reports on health policy: a systematic review [German]. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2005; 1:Doc02. Available from: http://www.egms.de/en/journals/hta/2005-1/hta000002.shtml (accessed January 20, 2016).Google Scholar
3. Thavaneswaran, P, Spigelman, A, Baggoley, C, O'Connell, H, Maddern, G. A review of policies and processes for the introduction of new interventional procedures. ASERNIP-S Report No. 58. Adelaide: ASERNIP-S, July 2007. Available from: https://www.surgeons.org/media/291153/Guidelines_review.pdf (accessed January 20, 2016).Google Scholar
4. Niessen, LW, Bridges, J, Lau, BD, et al. Assessing the Impact of Economic Evidence on Policymakers in Health Care—A Systematic Review. Methods Research Report. AHRQ Publication No. 12(13)-EHC133-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. October 2012. Available from: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm (accessed January 20, 2016).Google Scholar
5. INAHTA. Published Evidence on the influence of Health Technology Assessment. A systematic review. INAHTA, 2014. Available from: http://www.inahta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/INAHTA_Systematic-Review_Influence-of-HTA.pdf (accessed February 6, 2016).Google Scholar
6. INAHTA. Framework for reporting on impact of HTA reports. December 2003. Available from: http://www.inahta.org/hta-tools-resources/ (accessed February 6, 2016).Google Scholar
7. Goeree, R, Levin, L. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: The PRUFE framework – an integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process. PharmacoEconomics. 2006;24:1143–1156.Google Scholar
8. Dunning, J, Daly, JP, Malhotra, R, et al. The implications of NICE guidelines on the management of children presenting with head injury. Arch Dis Child. 2004;89:763–767.Google Scholar
9. Schluessmann, E, Diel, P, Aghayev, E, et al. SWISSspine: A nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur Spine J. 2009;18:851–861.Google Scholar
10. Brügger, U, Plessow, R, Hess, S, et al. The health technology assessment of the compulsory accident insurance scheme of hand transplantation in Switzerland. J Hand Surg Eur. 2015;40:914–923.Google Scholar
11. White, J, Carolan-Rees, G. PleurX peritoneal catheter drainage system for vacuum-assisted drainage of treatment-resistant, recurrent malignant ascites: A NICE medical technology guidance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10:299–308.Google Scholar
12. Ballini, L, Minozzi, S, Negro, A, Pirini, G, Grilli, R. A method for addressing research gaps in HTA, developed whilst evaluating robotic-assisted surgery: A proposal. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010;8:27.Google Scholar
13. Demerdjian, G. A 10-year hospital-based health technology assessment program in a public hospital in Argentina. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31:103–110.Google Scholar
14. Berrettini, S, Arslan, E, Baggiani, A, et al. Analysis of the impact of professional involvement in evidence generation for the HTA Process, subproject “cochlear implants”: Methodology, results and recommendations. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2011;31:273–280.Google Scholar
15. Kosherbayeva, L, Hailey, D, Kozhageldiyeva, L. A rapid assessment of bilateral cochlear implantation for children in Kazakhstan. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:1–5.Google Scholar
16. Vermeulen, V, Coppens, K, Kesteloot, K. Impact of health technology assessment on preventive screening in Belgium. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:316–328.Google Scholar
17. Banta, HD, Oortwiin, W. Health technology assessment and screening in The Netherlands: Case studies of mammography in breast cancer, PSA screening in prostate cancer, and ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:369–379.Google Scholar
18. Jonsson, E, Banta, HD, Schersten, T. Health technology assessment and screening in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:380–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Britton, M, Jonsson, E. Impact of health technology assessments: Some experiences of SBU. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:824–831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Axelsson, S, Helgason, AR, Lund, KE, Adolfsson, J. Disseminating evidence from health technology assessment: The case of tobacco prevention. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:500–505.Google Scholar
21. Stemerding, D, van Berkel, D. Maternal serum screening, political decision-making and social learning. Health Policy. 2001;56:111-125.Google Scholar
22. Fischer, KE, Grosse, SD, Rogowski, WH. The role of health technology assessment in coverage decisions on newborn screening. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:313–321.Google Scholar
23. Autti-Ramo, I, Makela, M. Screening for fetal abnormalities: From a health technology assessment report to a national statute. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:436–442.Google Scholar
24. Carlsson, P. Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:44–54.Google Scholar
25. Gagnon, MP, Sánchez, E, Pons, JM. Integration of health technology assessment recommendations into organizational and clinical practice: A case study in Catalonia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:169–176.Google Scholar
26. Bergh, C, Alopaeus, E, Jivegard, L. et al. Regional HTA work can have a good impact on health care. Good examples from Vastra Gotaland. Lakartidningen. 2010;107:1780–1783.Google Scholar
27. Burns, LR, Bradlow, ET, Lee, JA, Antonacci, AC. Assessment of medical devices: How to conduct comparative technology evaluations of product performance. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:455–463.Google Scholar
28. BlueCross BlueShield, A. Pharmacogenomics-based treatment of helicobacter pylori infection. Chicago IL: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBS); 2008.Google Scholar
29. Chen, Y, Banta, D, Tang, Z. Health technology assessment development in China. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):1202–1209.Google Scholar
30. Borowski, HZ, Brehaut, J, Hailey, D. Linking evidence from health technology assessments to policy and decision making: The Alberta Model. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:155–161.Google Scholar
31. Institute of Health Economics. Post policy implementation review (PPIR) of rapid fetal fibronectin testing for preterm labour in Alberta. Edmonton AB: Institute of Health Economics. 2015. Available from : http://www.ihe.ca/publications/post-policy-implementation-review-ppir-of-rapid-fetal-fibronectin-testing-for-preterm-labour-in-alberta (accessed July 15, 2016).Google Scholar
32. Buxton, MJ. Economic Evaluation and Decision Making in the UK. PharmacoEconomics. 2006;24:1133–1142.Google Scholar
33. Solans-Domènech, M, Adam, P, Guillamón, I, Permanyer-Miralda, G, Pons, JM, Escarrabill, J. Impact of clinical and health services research projects on decision-making: A qualitative study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2013;11:15.Google Scholar
34. Bowen, C. Health impact assessments in London: Assessing the London Mayoral strategies. NSW Public Health Bull. 2007;18:185–187.Google Scholar
35. Opinion Leader Research. Report on the qualitative evaluation of four health impact assessments on draft mayoral strategies for London. London Health Commission. August 2003. Available from: http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=116492 (accessed November 17, 2016).Google Scholar
36. Mad, P, Geiger-Gritsch, S, Hinterreiter, G, Mathis-Edenhofer, S, Wild, C. Pre-coverage assessments of new hospital interventions on Austria: Methodology and 3 years of experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:171–179.Google Scholar
37. Zechmeister, I, Schumacher, I. The impact of health technology assessment reports on decision making in Austria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:77–84.Google Scholar
38. Vinck, I, Lona, M, Swartenbroekx, N. Impact of the KCE reports published in 2009-2011. Methodology (MET). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) 2013. KCE Reports vol. A. D/2013/10.273/xx.Google Scholar
39. Levin, L, Goeree, R, Levine, M, et al. Coverage with evidence development: The Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:159–168.Google Scholar
40. Turnkey Management Consulting. A study of the impact of 2000-2001 HTA products. Edmonton: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, 2002. Available from: https://ia600204.us.archive.org/16/items/studyofimpactof200albe_0/studyofimpactof200albe_0.pdf (accessed November 17, 2016).Google Scholar
41. Hailey, D. Review of health technology assessment products 2003–2004. Edmonton: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research; Information Paper IP-23. January 2005. Available from: http://www.ihe.ca/advanced-search/review-of-health-technology-assessment-products-2003-2004 (accessed July 15, 2016).Google Scholar
42. Hailey, D. Profile of an HTA program. The AHFMR Health Technology Assessment Unit, 2002–2003. Edmonton: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, February 2004. Available from: https://ia600200.us.archive.org/6/items/profileofhtaprog00hail_0/profileofhtaprog00hail_0.pdf (accessed November 17, 2016).Google Scholar
43. McGregor, M. The impact of reports of The Technology Assessment Unit of the McGill University Health Centre. Montreal: McGill University Health Centre. 2012. Available from: https://www.mcgill.ca/tau/files/tau/muhc_tau_2012_65_impact_a.pdf (accessed November 17, 2016).Google Scholar
44. Poulin, P, Austen, L, Kortbeek, JB, Lafrenière, R. New technologies and surgical innovation: Five years of a local health technology assessment program in a surgical department. Surg Innov. 2012;19:187–199.Google Scholar
45. Bodeau-Livinec, F, Simon, E, Montagnier-Petrissans, C, Joel, ME, Fery Lemonnier, E. Impact of CEDIT recommendations: An example of health technology assessment in a hospital network. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:161–168.Google Scholar
46. Gibis, B, Rheinberger, P. Experiences with and impact of health technology assessment on the German Standing Committee of physicians and patients [German]. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2002;96:82–90.Google Scholar
47. Norezam, S, Bakri, R, Sabirin, J, Ghazali, I. The impact of health technology assessment in the Ministry of Health Malaysia. Putrajaya: Ministry of Health, Malaysia. 2008, updated 2013.Google Scholar
48. Ju, H, Hewson, K. Health technology assessment and evidence-based policy making: Queensland Department of Health experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:595–600.Google Scholar
49. Kolasa, K, Schubert, S, Manca, A, Hermanowski, T. A review of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) recommendations for drug therapies issued between 2007 and 2009 and their impact on policymaking processes in Poland. Health Policy. 2011;102:145–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50. Rochaix, L, Xerri, B. National Authority for Health. France. The Commonwealth Fund: Issue Brief. July 2009;58:1–9.Google Scholar
51. Teerawattananon, Y, Tritasavit, N, Suchonwanich, N, Kingkaew, P. The use of economic evaluation for guiding the pharmaceutical reimbursement list in Thailand. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2014;108:397–404.Google Scholar
52. Bennie, M, Dear, J, Hems, S, et al. An investigation into the effect of advice from the Scottish Medicines Consortium on the use of medicines in Scotland's Health Service. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;71:283–288.Google Scholar
53. Dietrich, ES. Effects of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence's technology appraisals on prescribing and net ingredient costs of drugs in the National Health Service in England. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:262–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
54. Hailey, D, Corabian, P, Harstall, C, Schneider, W. The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:651–656.Google Scholar
55. Hailey, D. A preliminary survey on the influence of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:415–418.Google Scholar
56. Oortwijn, WJ, Hanney, SR, Ligtvoet, A, et al. Assessing the impact of health technology assessment in The Netherlands. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:259–269.Google Scholar
57. 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;11:1–180.Google Scholar
58. Guthrie, S, Bienkowska-Gibbs, T, Manville, C, et al. The impact of the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, 2003-13: A multimethod evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19:1–291.Google Scholar
59. Turner, S, Bhurke, S, Cook, A. Impact of NIHR HTA Programme funded research on NICE clinical guidelines: A retrospective cohort. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:37.Google Scholar
60. Rosén, M, Werkö, S. Does HTA affect decisions and clinical practice in Sweden? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:265–272.Google Scholar
61. Pichon-Riviere, A, Augustovski, F, Marti, SG, et al. Transferability of health technology assessment reports in Latin America: An exploratory survey of researchers and decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:180–186.Google Scholar
62. Hailey, D, Babidge, W, Cameron, A, Davignon, L-A. HTA agencies and decision makers. An INAHTA guidance document. Stockholm: INAHTA, 2010. Available from: http://www.inahta.org/wp-content/themes/inahta/img/HTA%20%20Decision%20Makers.pdf (acessed July 15, 2016).Google Scholar
63. Raftery, J, Powell, J. Health technology assessment in the UK. Lancet. 2013;382:1278–1285.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hailey et al. supplementary material

List

Download Hailey et al. supplementary material(File)
File 16.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hailey et al. supplementary material

Figure 1

Download Hailey et al. supplementary material(File)
File 32.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hailey et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Hailey et al. supplementary material(File)
File 37.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hailey et al. supplementary material

Table S2

Download Hailey et al. supplementary material(File)
File 39 KB