Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T06:23:43.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Preliminary Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies for the Prioritization of Health Technology Assessments: A Discussion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Gareth Harper ,
Joy Townsend  and
Martin Buxton
Gareth Harper
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Joy Townsend
Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Martin Buxton
Affiliation:
Brunei University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper critically evaluates methods for the preliminary economic evaluation of health technologies and the prioritization of health technology assessment projects. It reports on the literature, and considers methods currently employed and the purposes of preliminary appraisal. It concludes that a preliminary economic appraisal needs to be applied to the two main stages of the prioritization process; to have transparent criteria; to allow for an appropriate range of potential outcomes; to be practicable, flexible, and efficient; and to be relevant to the assessment of different research projects.

Keywords

Technology AssessmentBiomedicalHealth PrioritiesResearch
Type
Special Section: Early Identification and Assessment of Emerging Health Technology
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , Fall 1998 , pp. 652 - 662
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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.Buxton, M., & Hanney, S.Assessing payback from Department of Health Research and Development: Preliminary report, vol. 1: The main report. Brunei University, HERG, 1994.Google Scholar
2.Buxton, M., & Hanney, S.How can payback from health services research be assessed? Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 1996, 1, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Claxton, K., & Posnett, J.An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Economics, 1996, 5, 513–24.3.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Department of Health. Standing Group on Health Technology: 1994 report. London: Department of Health, 1994.Google Scholar
5.Department of Health. Report of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme 1995. London: NHS, 1995.Google Scholar
6.Detsky, A. S.Using economic analysis to determine the resource consequences of choices made in planning clinical trials. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 1985, 38, 753–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Donaldson, M. S., & Sox, H. C. (eds.). Setting priorities for health technology assessment: A model process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992.Google Scholar
8.Drummond, M. F.Economic analysis alongside controlled trials. London: Department of Health, 1994.Google Scholar
9.Drummond, M. F., Davies, L. M., & Ferris, F. L. III. Assessing the costs and benefits of medical research: The Diabetic Retinopathy Study. Social Science and Medicine, 1992, 34, 973–81.Google Scholar
10.Drummond, M. F., O’Brien, B., Stoddart, G. L., & Torrance, G. W.Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
11.Eddy, D. M.Selecting technologies for assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 5, 485–501.Google Scholar
12.Henshall, C., Oortwijn, W., Stevens, A., Granados, A., & Banta, D.Priority setting for health technology assessment: Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. A paper produced by the priority setting subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS project. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1997, 13, 144–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Medical Research Council. Developing high quality proposals in health services research. London: MRC, 1994.Google Scholar
14.NHS Executive. Report of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme 1996. London: NHS Executive, 1996.Google Scholar
15.NHS Executive. National Co-Ordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment. The Annual Report of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme 1997: Identifying questions, finding answers. London: NHS Executive, 1997.Google Scholar
16.Perry, S., & Thamer, M.Health technology assessment: Decentralized and fragmented in the U.S. compared to other countries. Health Policy, 1997, 40, 177–98.Google Scholar
17.Sculpher, M. S., Drummond, M. F., & Buxton, M.The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 1997, 2, 26–30.Google Scholar
18.Townsend, J.Hormone replacement therapy: Assessment of present use, costs and trends. British Journal of General Practice, 1998, 48, 955–58.Google Scholar
19.Townsend, J., & Buxton, M.Cost effectiveness scenario analysis for a proposed trial of hormone replacement therapy. Health Policy, 1997, 39, 181–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed