Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T17:31:51.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender in health technology assessment: Pilot study on agency approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2011

Dimitra Panteli ,
Annette Zentner ,
Philipp Storz-Pfennig  and
Reinhard Busse
Dimitra Panteli
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Berlin
Annette Zentner
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Berlin
Philipp Storz-Pfennig
Affiliation:
National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds
Reinhard Busse
Affiliation:
Technische Universität Berlin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Gender as a social construct is a recognized health determinant. Because best practice in reporting health technology assessment (HTA) clearly specifies the need to appraise a technology's social impact within the target population, the extent to which gender issues are taken into account in HTA production is of interest, not only in light of equitable practices but also for reasons of effectiveness. The aim of this study is to provide a first assessment of the degree of gender sensitivity shown by HTA agencies around the world today.

Methods: The Web sites of sixty HTA agencies were analyzed. The consideration of gender aspects was specifically looked for in each agency's general mission statement, its priority setting process, and its methodological approach. Additionally, specific gender-oriented initiatives not belonging to any of the aforementioned categories were identified.

Results: Of the sixty agencies, less than half mention a commitment to addressing the social implication of health technologies. Only fifteen institutions make information on their priority setting principles available on their Web sites and gender was an issue in two of those cases. Data on methodology were obtainable online from18 agencies, two of which mentioned gender issues explicitly. Finally, gender-oriented initiatives were identified by thirteen agencies.

Conclusions: A gender-sensitive approach is apparently rarely adopted in current HTA production. Exceptional practices and relevant tools do exist and could serve as examples to be promoted by international collaborative networks.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentGenderSocial implicationsGender biasImplementation tools
Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 224 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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. Agencia de Evaluación de Technologías Sanitarias de Andalucía. Ayudando a la toma de decisions en Salud: Lineas Estratégicas de Desarrollo. Consejería de Salud, Junta de Andalucía.Google Scholar
2. Annandale, E, Hunt, K. Gender inequalities in health. Philadelphia: Buckingham, Open University Press; 2000.Google Scholar
3. Banta, HD. Report from the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int J Technol Assesss Health Care. 1997;13:131–340.Google Scholar
4. Busse, R, Orvain, J, Velasco, M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments: Report of working group 4. Int J Technol Assesss Health Care. 2002;18:361–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for authors of CADTH health technology assessment reports. Revised May 2003; ISBN: 1-894620-87-9 (online).Google Scholar
6. EUnetHTA. HTA Core ModelTM handbook. 2008. https://fio.stakes.fi/htacore/handbook.html.Google Scholar
7. National Health System Quality Improvement Scotland. Gender equality scheme (April 2007 – March 2010). http://www.nhshealthquality.org/nhsqis/files/GenderEqualityScheme.pdf.Google Scholar
8. National Health System Quality Improvement Scotland. Gender equality scheme 2007–2010, annual progress report: June 200. http://www.nhshealthquality.org/nhsqis/files/FairforAll_GESProgressReport_JUN09.pdf.Google Scholar
9. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Annual equalities report 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/562/B8/AnnualEqualitiesReport2008.pdf.Google Scholar
10. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Issued June 2008; ISBN: 1-84629-741-9 (online).Google Scholar
11. Risberg, G, Hamberg, K, Johansson, EE. Gender perspective in medicine: A vital part of medical scientific rationality. A useful model for comprehending structures and hierarchies within medical science. BMC Med. 2006,4:20. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-4-20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Sharma, N. Gender inequality and women's health: An empirical study of the factors affecting their health. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Hotel InterContinental, New Orleans, LA. 2008-08-24. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p143276_index.html.Google Scholar
13. Spitzer, D. Engendering health disparities. Can J Public Health. 2005;96:578–592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Thurston, W, Vissandjée, B. An ecological model for understanding culture as a determinant of women's health. Crit Public Health. 2005;15:229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. World Health Organization. Strategy for integrating gender analysis and actions into the work of WHO. Geneva: WHO; 2009. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241597708_eng_Text.pdf.Google Scholar