Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T05:30:26.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Renaldo N. Battista ,
David H. Feeny  and
Matthew J. Hodge
Renaldo N. Battista
Affiliation:
The Montreal General Hospital and McGill University
David H. Feeny
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Matthew J. Hodge
Affiliation:
The Montreal General Hospital and McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA) was recently evaluated. We summarize the evaluation process, report, and 17 recommendations for enhancing CCOHTA's effectiveness. This paper may be useful for evaluators of agencies for technology assessment.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Winter 1995 , pp. 102 - 116
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

REFERENCES

1.Banta, H. D., Behney, C. J., & Willems, J. S.Toward rational technology in medicine: Considerations for health policy. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1981.Google Scholar
2.Battista, R. N.Health care technology assessment: Linking science and policy-making (Editorial). Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1992, 146, 461–62.Google Scholar
3.Battista, R. N., & Fletcher, S. W.Making recommendations on preventive practices: Methodological issues. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 1988, 4(suppl), 53–67.Google Scholar
4.Drummond, M. F., Stoddard, G. L., & Torrance, G. W.Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
5.Feeny, D. H., Guyatt, G., & Tugwell, P. (eds.). Health Care Technology: Effectiveness, efficiency, and public policy. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1986.Google Scholar
6.Feeny, D. H., Labelle, R., & Torrance, G. W. Integrating economic evaluations and quality of life assessments. In Spilker, Bert (ed.). Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990, 71–83.Google Scholar
7.Fuchs, V. R., & Garber, A. M.The new technology assessment. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 323, 673–77.Google Scholar
8.Guyatt, G. H., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L.Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1993, 118, 622–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Jacob, R., & Battista, R. N.Assessing technology assessment: Early results of the Quebec experience. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1993, 9, 564–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Kamlet, M. S.The comparative benefits modeling project: A framework for cost-utility analysis of government health care programs. Washington, DC: Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1992.Google Scholar
11.Laupacis, A., Feeny, D. H., Detsky, A. S., & Tugwell, P. X.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
12.Oxman, A. D., & Guyatt, G. H.Guidelines for reading literature reviews. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1988, 138, 697–703.Google Scholar
13.Patrick, D. L., & Erickson, P.Health status and health policy: Quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
14.Woolf, S. H., Battista, R. N., Anderson, G. M., et al. Assessing the clinical effectiveness of preventive maneuvers: Analytic principles and systematic methods in reviewing evidence and developing clinical practice recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1990, 43, 891–905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed