Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:43:54.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVALUATION OF THE HTA CORE MODEL FOR NATIONAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS: COMPARATIVE STUDY AND EXPERIENCES FROM EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2017

Kristina Kõrge ,
Nadine Berndt ,
Juergen Hohmann ,
Florence Romano  and
Mickael Hiligsmann
Kristina Kõrge
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University
Nadine Berndt
Affiliation:
Cellule d'expertise médicale, Inspection générale de la sécurité sociale, [email protected]
Juergen Hohmann
Affiliation:
European Commission, DEVCO/B3, Migration, Employment and Inequalities, Brussels
Florence Romano
Affiliation:
Cellule d'expertise médicale, Inspection générale de la sécurité sociale, Luxembourg
Mickael Hiligsmann
Affiliation:
Department of Health Services Research, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The health technology assessment (HTA) Core Model® is a tool for defining and standardizing the elements of HTA analyses within several domains for producing structured reports. This study explored the parallels between the Core Model and a national HTA report. Experiences from various European HTA agencies were also investigated to determine the Core Model's adaptability to national reports.

Methods: A comparison between a national report on Genetic Counseling, produced by the Cellule d'expertise médicale Luxembourg, and the Core Model was performed to identify parallels in terms of relevant and comparable assessment elements (AEs). Semi-structured interviews with five representatives from European HTA agencies were performed to assess their user experiences with the Core Model.

Results: The comparative study revealed that 50 percent of the total number (n = 144) of AEs in the Core Model were relevant for the national report. Of these 144 AEs from the Core Model, 34 (24 percent) were covered in the national report. Some AEs were covered only partly. The interviewees emphasized flexibility in using the Core Model and stated that the most important aspects to be evaluated include characteristics of the disease and technology, clinical effectiveness, economic aspects, and safety.

Conclusions: In the present study, the national report covered an acceptable number of AEs of the Core Model. These results need to be interpreted with caution because only one comparison was performed. The Core Model can be used in a flexible manner, applying only those elements that are relevant from the perspective of the technology assessment and specific country context.

Keywords

Technology assessmentValidation studiesCase reportsQualitative researchNational health policy
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 33 , Issue 6 , 2017 , pp. 644 - 653
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. Lampe, K, Mäkelä, M, Velasco Garrido, M, Anttila, H, Autti-Rämö, I, Hicks, NJ, et al. The HTA Core Model: A novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):9–20.Google Scholar
2. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model ® version 3.0 (Pdf). 2016. www.htacoremodel.info/BrowseModel.aspx (accessed March 3, 2016).Google Scholar
3. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model User Guide Version 1.1. 2016. http://meka.thl.fi/htacore/documents/HTACoreModel_UserGuideVersion1.1.pdf (accessed March 3, 2016).Google Scholar
4. Chiarolla, E, Ambrosio, G, Amicosante, AMV, Caimmi, P, Carluccio, E, Corio, M, et al. Implantable cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillator (CRT-D) in patients with heart failure – Rapid HTA Report. Rome, Italy: Agenzia nazionale per i servizi sanitari regionali (Agenas); 2014.Google Scholar
5. Desomer, A, Gerkens, S, Vinck, I, Leonard, C, Neyt, M, Paulus, D, et al. Cardiovascular pre-participation screening in young athletes. Brussels, Belgium: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Brussels, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2015. KCE Reports 241. D/2015/10.273/30.Google Scholar
6. Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger. CRC Screening mit M2-PK Stuhltest Im Vergleich zu gFOBT und FIT. Wien, Austria: Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger; 2015.Google Scholar
7. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, National Uptake. List of EUnetHTA Output used for national adaptation. 2016. http://www.eunethta.eu/national-uptake (accessed April 7, 2016).Google Scholar
8. EUnetHTA Joint Action 1, Work Package 8. EUnetHTA Handbook on Health Technology Assessment Capacity Building. Barcelona (Spain): Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research. Catalan Health Service. Department of Health Autonomous Government of Catalonia; 2008. http://www.inahta.org/wp-content/themes/inahta/img/eunethta_wp8_hb_hta_capacity_building1.pdf (accessed April 8, 2016).Google Scholar
9. Pasternack, I, de Groot, I, Kleijnen, S, Polman, P. Comparing the HTA Core Model with a national Health Technology Assessment report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:530–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Inspection générale de la sécurité sociale. Article 65bis (1) du code de la sécurité sociale: lois et règlements. Luxembourg: Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Ministère de la sécurité sociale; 2011.Google Scholar
11. Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. Règlement grand-ducal du 30 juillet 2011 relatif au fonctionnement de la Commission de nomenclature des actes et services pris en charge par l'assurance maladie. Mémorial A n°183 du 23 août 2011. Luxembourg: Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg; 2011.Google Scholar
12. Stephens, JM, Handke, B, Doshi, JA. International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): Does practice meet the principles proposed for good research. Comp Effect Res. 2012;2:29–44.Google Scholar
13. Schwarzer, R, Siebert, U. Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: Comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:305–314.Google Scholar
14. Cellule d'expertise médicale. Analysis and proposals concerning the demand of the Controle medical de la sécurité sociale to introduce new acts for genetic medicine. Luxembourg: Cellule d'expertise médicale; 2015 (unpublished).Google Scholar
15. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model ® version 2.1 (Pdf). 2015. http://www.corehta.info/BrowseModel.aspx (accessed July 2, 2015).Google Scholar
16. Murphy, E, Dingwall, R, Greatbatch, D, Parker, S, Watson, P. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: A review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2iii-ix: 1–274.Google Scholar
17. Harrell, MC, Bradley, MA. Data collection methods: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Santa Monica, CA: National defense research institute (RAND); 2009.Google Scholar
18. Golafshani, N. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report. 2003;8:597–607.Google Scholar
19. Fusch, PI, Ness, LR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report. 2015;20:1408–1416.Google Scholar
20. Busse, R, Orvain, J, Velasco, M, Gürtner, F, Jørgensen, T, Jovell, A, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Lavis, JN, Wilson, MG, Grimshaw, JM, Haynes, RB, Ouimet, M, Raina, P, et al. Supporting the use of health technology assessments in policy making about health systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:405–414.Google Scholar
22. Velasco Garrido, M, Gerhardus, A, Røttingen, JA, Busse, R. Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy. 2010;94:196–202.Google Scholar
23. Hailey, D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment: A checklist for HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Wagener, R. Health technology assessment in Luxembourg. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:475–484.Google Scholar
25. Lo Scalzo, A, Vicari, N, Corio, M, Perrini, MR, Jefferson, T, Gillespie, F, et al. Collaborative models for the joint production of core health technology assessments: Negative and positive aspects for the joint work of different European agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:536-453.Google Scholar
26. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model User Guide Version 1.1 (Pdf). 2015. https://meka.thl.fi/htacore/documents/HTACoreModel_UserGuide_Version1.1.pdf (accessed June 14, 2017).Google Scholar
27. Kristensen, FB, Lampe, K, Wild, C, Cerbo, M, Goettsch, W, Becla, L. The HTA Core Model®-10 years of developing an international framework to share multidimensional value assessment. Value Health. 2017;20:244–250.Google Scholar
28. Kleijnen, S, Toenders, W, de Groot, F, Huic, M, George, E, Wieseler, B, et al. European collaboration on relative effectiveness assessments: What is needed to be successful? Health Policy. 2015;119:569–576.Google Scholar
29. Ritrovato, M, Faggiano, FC, Tedesco, G, Derrico, P. Decision-oriented health technology assessment: One step forward in supporting the decision-making process in hospitals. Value Health. 2015;18:505–511.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kõrge et al supplementary material

Kõrge et al supplementary material 1

Download Kõrge et al supplementary material(File)
File 31 KB