Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:49:47.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology Assessment: Old, New, and Needs-based

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Peter Tugwell ,
Chitr Sitthi-amorn ,
Annette O'connor ,
Janet Hatcher-roberts ,
Yves Bergevin  and
Michael Wolfson
Peter Tugwell
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Chitr Sitthi-amorn
Affiliation:
Chulalongkorn University
Annette O'connor
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Janet Hatcher-roberts
Affiliation:
International Development Research Centre
Yves Bergevin
Affiliation:
Canadian International Development Agency and McGill University
Michael Wolfson
Affiliation:
Statistics Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent health reports, including the 1993 World Development Report, have emphasized the importance of integrating the needs of the population into technology assessment. This paper reviews previous approaches to technology assessment and identifies the missing link between technology and its impact on the physical, emotional, and social needs of the community, namely needs-based technology assessment. It stresses the key role played by issues of equity and community values in making technology decisions. A number of models for needs-based technology assessment are described.

Type
Special Section: Needs-Based Technology Assessment: Who Can Afford Not to Use It?
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , Fall 1995 , pp. 650 - 662
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

1.Battista, R. N.Health care technology assessment: Linking science and policy-making. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1992, 146, 461–62.Google Scholar
2.Bennett, S., & Tangcharoensathien, V.A shrinking state? Politics, economics and private health care in Thailand. Public Administration Development, 1994, 14, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.British Medical Research Council, Singapore Tuberculosis Service. Five-year follow-up of a clinical trial of three six-month regimens of chemotherapy given intermittently in the continuation phase in the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. American Review of Respiratory Disease, 1988, 137, 1147–50.Google Scholar
4.Brook, R. H., & Lohr, R. N.Will we need to ration effective health care? Issues in Science and Technology, 1986, 3, 68–77.Google Scholar
5.Chaulet, P.Tuberculosis: A six-month cure. World Health Forum, 1989, 10, 116–22.Google Scholar
6.Chen, L. C.Primary health care in developing countries: Overcoming operational, technical, and social barriers. Lancet, 1986, 2, 1260–65.Google Scholar
7.Commission on Health Research for Development. Health research: Essential link to equity in development. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
8.Cuneo, W. D., & Snider, D. E. Jr., Enhancing patient compliance with tuberculosis therapy. Clinics in Chest Medicine, 1989, 10, 375–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Donaldson, M. S., & Sox, H. C.Setting priorities for health technology assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992.Google Scholar
10.Drummond, M., Torrance, G., & Mason, J.Cost-effectiveness league tables: More harm than good? Social Science and Medicine, 1993, 37, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Euxhauser, A., Luce, B. R., Taylor, W. R., & Reblando, J.Health care CBA/CEA: An update on the growth and composition of the literature. Medical Care, 1993, 31, JS1–11.Google Scholar
12.Feeny, D. New health technologies: Their effect on health and the cost of health care. In Feeny, D., Guyatt, G. H., & Tugwell, P. (eds.), Health care technology. Montreal: The Institute for Research and Public Policy, 1986, 5–24.Google Scholar
13.Fuchs, V. R., & Garber, A. M.The new technology assessment. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 323, 673–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Hogerzeil, H. V., Walker, G. J. A., Sallami, A. O., & Fernando, G.Impact of an essential drug programme on availability and rational use of drugs. Action Programme on Essential Drugs and Vaccines, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Lancet, 1989, 1, 141–42.Google Scholar
15.Kasper, J. F., Mulley, A. G., & Wennberg, J. E. Developing shared decision making programs to improve the quality of health care. Quality Review Bulletin, 06 1992, 183–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Kassirer, J. P.Incorporating patients’ preferences into medical decisions. New England Journal of Medicine, 1994, 330, 1895–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Kazanjian, A. Doing the right thing, not just doing things right: A framework for technology decisions. In British Columbia Office of Health Technology Assessment (ed.), Design and development of a conceptual and quantitative framework for health technology decisions: A multi-project compendium of research underway. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1995, 2D.Google Scholar
18.Laupacis, A., Feeny, D., Detsky, A. S., & Tugwell, P.How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1992, 146, 473–81.Google Scholar
19.Levine, M. N., Gafni, A., Markham, B., & MacFarlane, D.A bedside decision instrument to elicit a patient's preference concerning adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992, 117, 53–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Llewellyn-Thomas, H. A., McGreal, M. J., Thiel, E. C., et al. Patients' willingness to enter clinical trials: Measuring the association with perceived benefit and preference for decision participation. Social Science and Medicine, 1991, 32, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Murray, C., Styblo, K., & Rouillon, A. Tuberculosis. In Jamison, D. T., Bobadilla, L., Measham, A., & Mosley, W. H. (eds.), Disease control priorities in developing countries, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, 233–60.Google Scholar
22.Nease, R. F., Sumner, W., & Owens, D. K.A methodology for estimating the costeffectiveness of incorporating patient preferences in practice guidelines. Medical Decision Making, 1992, 12, 346.Google Scholar
23.O'Brien, R. J.Present chemotherapy of tuberculosis. Seminars in Respiratory Infections, 1989, 4, 216–24.Google ScholarPubMed
24.O'Connor, A., Tugwell, P., & Wells, G.Testing a portable, self-administered decision aid for post-menopausal women considering long-term hormone replacement therapy to prevent osteoporosis and heart disease (Abstract). Medical Decision Making, 1994, 14, 438.Google Scholar
25.Rettig, R. A.Technology assessment: An update. Investigative Radiology, 1991, 26, 165–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Rothert, M., Holmes, M., & Rovner, D. Womens' judgments of estrogen replacement therapy. In Michigan State University Grant NTO 1245. NIH National Center for Nursing Research.Google Scholar
27.Sackett, D. L.Cochrane's legacy (Editorial). Lancet, 1992, 340, 1131–32.Google Scholar
28.Sackett, D. L., Haynes, R. B., Guyatt, G. H., & Tugwell, P.Clinical epidemiology: A basic science for clinical medicine, 2nd ed.Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1991.Google Scholar
29.Steinbrook, R., & Lo, B.The Oregon medicaid demonstration project: Will it provide adequate medical care? New England Journal of Medicine, 1992, 326, 340–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Suwanwela, C., Poshyachinda, V., Tansanapradit, P., et al. Health service research towards HFA 2000: A case study at hill tribe villages in northern Thailand. Technical report RM 1/80. Thailand; Chulalongkorn University, Institute of Health Research, 1980.Google Scholar
31.Task Force on Health Research for Development. Essential national health research: A strategy for action in health and human development. Geneva: United Nations Development Programme, 1991.Google Scholar
32.Tugwell, P., Bennett, K., Feeny, D., et al. A framework for the evaluation of technology: The technology assessment iterative loop. In Feeny, D., Guyatt, G. H., & Tugwell, P. (eds.), Health care technology. Montreal: The Institute for Research and Public Policy, 1986, 41–56.Google Scholar
33.Tugwell, P., Chambers, L., Torrance, G., et al. , & POHEM Workshop Group. The population health impact of arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology, 1993, 20, 1048–51.Google Scholar
34.Warren, K. S., Bundy, D. A. P., Anderson, R. M., et al. Helminth infection. In Jamison, D. T., Bobadilla, L., Measham, A., & Mosley, W. H. (eds.), Disease control priorities in developing countries. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, 131–60.Google Scholar
35.Werhane, M. J., Snukst-Torbeck, G., & Schraufnagel, D. E.The tuberculosis clinic. Chest, 1989, 96, 815–18.Google Scholar
36.Wiboonpolprasert, S. Overview of the drug system in Thailand. In Proceedings of the National Seminar on the Analysis of the Drug System in Thailand. Thailand: Ministry of Public Health, FDA, 06 13–14, 1994, 1–37.Google Scholar
37.Williams, A.Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. British Medical Journal, 1985, 291, 326–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Wolfson, M.A template for health information. World Health Statistics Quarterly, 1992, 45, 109–13 and accompanying diskette.Google Scholar
39.World Bank. World Development Report 1993. Investing in health. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar