Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:38:25.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LOOKING BACK ON 5 YEARS OF HORIZON SCANNING IN ONCOLOGY

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Anna Nachtnebel ,
Johanna Breuer ,
Wolfgang Willenbacher ,
Anna Bucsics ,
Peter Krippl  and
Claudia Wild
Anna Nachtnebel
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology [email protected]
Johanna Breuer
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
Wolfgang Willenbacher
Affiliation:
Internal Medicine V: Haematology & Oncology, Medical University of Innsbruck
Anna Bucsics
Affiliation:
Department of Finance, University of Vienna and Hauptverband der Österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger
Peter Krippl
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine with Hematology and Oncology Steiermärkische Krankenanstaltengesellschaft m. b. H. Krankenhausverbund Feldbach-Fürstenfeld
Claudia Wild
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The regularly structured adaptation of health technology assessment (HTA) programs is of utmost importance to sustain the relevance of the products for stakeholders and to justify investment of scarce financial resources. This study describes internal adjustments and external measures taken to ensure the Horizon Scanning Programme in Oncology (HSO) is current.

Methods: Formal evaluation methods comprising a survey, a download, an environmental analysis, and a Web site questionnaire were used to evaluate user satisfaction.

Results: The evaluation showed that users were satisfied with HSO outputs in terms of timeliness, topics selected, and depth of information provided. Discussion of these findings with an expert panel led to changes such as an improved dissemination strategy and the introduction of an additional output, that is, the publication of a league table of emerging oncology drugs. The rather high level of international usage and the environmental analysis highlighted a considerable overlap in topics assessed and, thus, the potential for international collaboration. As a consequence, thirteen reports were jointly published based on eleven “calls for collaboration.” To further facilitate collaboration and the usability of reports for other agencies, HSO reports will be adjusted according to tools developed at a European level.

Conclusions: Evaluation of the impact of HTA programs allows the tailoring of outputs to fit the needs of the target population. However, within a fast developing HTA community, estimates of impact will increasingly be determined by international collaborative efforts. Refined methods and a broader definition of impact are needed to ultimately capture the efficiency of national HTA programs.

Keywords

Program evaluationCooperative behaviorTechnology assessmentBiomedicalHealth policyAwareness
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 32 , Issue 1-2 , 2016 , pp. 54 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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. Nachtnebel, A, Geiger-Gritsch, S, Hintringer, K, Wild, C. Scanning the horizon: Development and implementation of an early awareness system for anticancer drugs in Austria. Health Policy. 2012;104:1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment. Horizon scanning in oncology. http://eprints.hta.lbg.ac.at/view/types/dsd-hso.html (accessed August 16, 2015).Google Scholar
3. 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
4. Douw, K, Vondeling, H. Selection of new health technologies for assessment aimed at informing decision making: A survey among horizon scanning systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:177–183.Google Scholar
5. Packer, C, Fung, M, Stevens, A. Analyzing 10 years of early awareness and alert activity in the United kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:308–314.Google Scholar
6. Packer, C, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I, Simpson, S. The evolution of early awareness and alert methods and systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:199–200.Google Scholar
7. EuroScan International Network. A toolkit for the identification and assessment of new and emerging health technologies. Birmingham: EuroScan International Network; 2014.Google Scholar
8. Integrate-HTA. http://www.integrate-hta.eu/ (accessed August 10, 2015).Google Scholar
9. Shaping European Early Dialogues for health technologies. http://www.earlydialogues.eu/has/ (accessed August 10, 2015).Google Scholar
10. Advance-HTA. http://www.advance-hta.eu/ (accessed August 10, 2015).Google Scholar
11. Gerhardus, A, Dorendorf, E, Rottingen, J, Santamera, A. Health technology assessment and health policy making in Europe - Current status, challenges and potential. Brussels: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policy; 2008.Google Scholar
12. Sheehan, KB. E-mail survey response rates: A review. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2001;6.Google Scholar
13. Zakosteletzki, L, Nachtnebel, A. Horizon scanning in oncology - Impact evaluation and environmental analysis. Wien, Austria: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment; 2012.Google Scholar
14. Hailey, D, Babidge, W, Cameron, A, Lise, A. HTA agencies and decision makers - An INAHTA guidance document. Alberta, Canada: INAHTA; 2010.Google Scholar
15. Wanke, M, Juzwishin, D, Thornley, R, Chan, L. An exploratory review of evaluations of health technology assessment agencies. HTA Initiative. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research; 2006.Google Scholar
16. Murphy, K, Packer, C, Stevens, A, Simpson, S. Effective early warning systems for new and emerging health technologies: Developing an evaluation framework and an assessment of current systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:324–330.Google Scholar
17. Raftery, J, Hanney, S, Green, C, Buxton, M. Assessing the impact of England's National Health Service R&D Health Technology Assessment program using the “payback” approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:1–5.Google Scholar
18. American Association for Public Opinion Research Response Rates - An Overview. http://www.aapor.org/AAPORKentico/Education-Resources/For-Researchers/Poll-Survey-FAQ/Response-Rates-An-Overview.aspx (accessed January 18, 2015).Google Scholar
19. Hofmarcher, M. Health systems in transition - Austria. Brussels: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policy; 2013.Google Scholar
20. Huic, M, Nachtnebel, A, Zechmeister, I, et al. Collaboration in health technology assessment (EUnetHTA joint action, 2010–2012): Four case studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:323–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. EUnetHTA. Work package 5 joint action: Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals. HTA Core Model® for rapid relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals. Copenhagen: EUnetHTA; 2013.Google Scholar
22. Hailey, D. Elements of effectiveness for health technology assessment programs. HTA Initiative. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research; 2003.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Nachtnebel supplementary material

Table S1

Download Nachtnebel supplementary material(File)
File 30.1 KB