Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T21:17:08.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“The future should not take us by surprise”: Preparation of an early warning system in Denmark

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2004

Karla Douw ,
Hindrik Vondeling ,
Jan Sørensen ,
Torben Jørgensen  and
Helga Sigmund
Karla Douw
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment
Hindrik Vondeling
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
Jan Sørensen
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
Torben Jørgensen
Affiliation:
Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment
Helga Sigmund
Affiliation:
Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: To explore and test methods for the operation of a national Early Warning System (EWS) in Denmark and to support decision making by the Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment on this issue.

Methods: On the basis of literature reviews, information from members of EuroScan, and supported by clinical experts and stakeholders, existing methods were adapted and new methods were developed as part of a feasibility study.

Results: Approximately 200 technologies in 30 specialties were identified on the basis of information by EuroScan. A new instrument was developed to distinguish between important and unimportant technologies (filtering). Clinical experts in six specialties applied the instrument to sixty-two technologies in their respective fields, of which nine (15%) were judged potentially important for the Danish health care system. For priority setting, adapting a Dutch instrument to the Danish context was discussed. In principle, the instrument was acceptable, but several changes were proposed, for example, relating to the decentralized structure of the Danish health care system. For early assessment, the format and methods applied by SBU and Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA) were compared and applied to pharmaceuticals (glitazones in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus) and a procedure (embolization of uterine fibromas). Given the main target group of the Danish EWS, local decision makers, the CCOHTA format was preferred.

Conclusions: The findings of the study have laid the foundation for an EWS using appropriate methods adapted to local circumstances. On the basis of the findings, a decision was made to start an EWS.

Keywords

Early warning systemEmerging health technologiesHTAMethodologyDenmark
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 2004 , pp. 342 - 350
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

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

Banta HD, Gelijns AC. 1994 The future and health care technology: Implications of a system for early identification. World Health Stat Q. 47: 140– 48.Google Scholar
Buxton M, Hanney S. 1996 How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1: 35– 43.Google Scholar
Christiansen T. 2002 Organization and financing of the Danish health care system. Health Policy. 59: 107– 118.Google Scholar
Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Canadian Emerging Technology Program (CETAP). Issues in Emerging Health Technologies. Troglitazone for Type II Diabetes (revised January 1998). Available at: http://www.ccohta.ca/newweb/etech.asp. Accessed March 11, 2002.
Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment. 2001. Etablering af et dansk system til tidlig varsling af nye medicinske teknologier. Rapport fra et pilotprojekt. (Establishment of a Danish system for early warning of new technologies. Report of a pilot project). Copenhagen: P.J. Schmidt A/S
Donaldson MS, Sox HC. eds. 1992. Setting priorities for health technology assessment: A model process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
Eddy DM. 1989 Selecting technologies for assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 5: 485– 501.Google Scholar
EuroScan. The European Information Network on New and Changing Health Technologies. http://www.publichealth.bham.ac.uk/euroscan/. Accessed March 11, 2002.
Hailey D, Topfer L-A, Wills F. 2001 Providing information on emerging health technologies to provincial decision makers: A pilot project. Health Policy. 58: 15– 26.Google Scholar
Haller J. 2000 Fremskridt må ikke komme bag på os (The future should not take us by surprise). Ugeskrift Læger. 162: 812– 814 (in Danish).Google Scholar
International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Impact of HTA on Policy: Examples from INAHTA members. INAHTA Newsletter, nr. 4, 2002. Available at: http://www.inahta.org/. Accessed March 25, 2002.
Jørgensen T, Larsen GL. 1998 Basis for decisions on emerging health technology: A Danish feasibility study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 14: 624– 635.Google Scholar
Jørgensen T. 1998. Idé-oplæg: tidlig varsling af kommende medicinske teknologier (Proposal: Early Warning of emerging health technologies). Institut for Sundhedsvæsen (DSI) (internal report, in Danish). Copenhagen: DSI
Lara ME, Goodman C. 1990. National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
Mowatt G, Thomson M-A, Grimshaw J, Grant A. 1998 Implementing early warning messages on emerging health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 14: 663– 670.Google Scholar
Oortwijn WJ, Vondeling H, Van Barneveld T, Van Vugt C, Bouter LM. 2002 Priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: Principles and practice. Health Policy. 62: 227– 242.Google Scholar
Rico R, Asua J. 1996. The prioritisation of evaluation topics of health. Vitoria Gasteiz: Osteba
Robert G, Stevens A, Gabbay J. 1999 ‘Early warning systems’ for identifying new healthcare technologies. Health Technol Assess. 3: 13.Google Scholar
Stevens A, Robert G, Gabbay J. 1997 Identifying new health care technologies in the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 13: 59– 67.Google Scholar
The Danish National Board of Health. 1996. National Strategy for Health Technology Assessment. Copenhagen: Danish National Board of Health
The Swedish Council for Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). SBU Alert. Early assessment of new health technologies. Acupuncture treatment for stroke. Available at: http://www.sbu.se/admin/index.asp. Accessed March 11, 2002.
Trindade E, Topfer L-A, De Giusti M. 1998 Internet information sources for the identification of emerging health technologies. A starting point. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 14: 644– 651.Google Scholar