Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:35:03.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Health technology assessment for resource allocation decisions: Are key principles relevant for Latin America?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2010

Andres Pichon-Riviere ,
Federico Augustovski ,
Adolfo Rubinstein ,
Sebastián García Martí ,
Sean D. Sullivan  and
Michael F. Drummond
Andres Pichon-Riviere
Affiliation:
Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS) and University of Buenos Aires
Federico Augustovski
Affiliation:
Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS) and Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires
Adolfo Rubinstein
Affiliation:
Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS) and University of Buenos Aires
Sebastián García Martí
Affiliation:
Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS)
Sean D. Sullivan
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Michael F. Drummond
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: A set of fifteen key principles (KP) has been recently proposed to guide decisions on the structure of HTA programs, the methods of HTA, the processes for conducting HTA and the use of HTA findings in decision-making. The objective of this research is to explore whether these KPs are relevant and useful in Latin America (LA), and to what extent they are being applied.

Methods: A Web-based survey was sent to 11,792 HTA researchers and users in LA to explore the perceived relevance of each KP, its current level of application and the gap between these two.

Results: We received 1,142 responses from nineteen LA countries (9.7 percent response rate). The subgroup of KP related to Methods and to the Use of HTA received the higher mean scores in the relevance scale (9.00 and 8.94). Level of current application scored low in all KP (3.2 to 4.9). Higher gaps were observed in principles related to the use of HTA in decision making and to the processes for conducting HTA. Countries with more developed HTA showed higher scores in the degree of current application (5.3 versus 3.4, p < .01) and lower gaps (3.84 versus 5.21, p < .01). Researchers, compared with research users, scored the relevance of the KPs higher.

Conclusions: KPs seem to be very relevant to most HTA researchers and users in LA. However, the current level of application was considered uniformly poor. Higher gaps were observed in KPs related to the link between HTA and decision making, highlighting one of the major challenges for the countries in the region.

Keywords

Biomedical technology assessmentHealth policyLatin America
Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 421 - 427
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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. Augustovski, F, Iglesias, C, Manca, A, Drummond, M, Rubinstein, A, Martí, SG. Barriers to generalizability of health economic evaluations in Latin America and the Caribbean region. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:919–929.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Augustovski, F, Bastardo, Y, Caso, A, et al. Pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Latin America: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. ISPOR Connections; 2008. http://www.ispor.org/news/articles/Oct08/LatinAmericaPE.asp (accessed October, 20 2009).Google Scholar
3. Banta, D, Almeida, RT. The development of health technology assessment in Brazil. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):255–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Banta, D. Commentary on the article “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions”. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:362–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Banta, D. Health technology assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):253–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Developing health technology assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: PAHO/WHO; 1998.Google Scholar
7. Drummond, M, Schwartz, J, Jonsson, B, et al. Response from the authors of “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions”. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:367–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Drummond, M, Schwartz, JS, Jonsson, B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244–258; discussion 362-368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Gomez-Dantes, O, Frenk, J. Health technology assessment in Mexico. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):270–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Hailey, D. Commentary on the article “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions”. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:365–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Iglesias, CP, Drummond, MF, Rovira, J. Health-care decision-making processes in Latin America: Problems and prospects for the use of economic evaluation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. INAHTA: International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). http://www.inahta.org (accessed October, 20 2009).Google Scholar
13. Liberati, A, Sheldon, TA, Banta, HD. EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup report on methodology. Methodological guidance for the conduct of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:186–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Neuhauser, D. Commentary on the article “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions”. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Pan American Health Organization. Health in the Americas 2007. Volume II: Countries. Scientific and Technical Publication No. 622. Washington: Pan American Health Organization; 2007.Google Scholar
16. Rubinstein, A, Belizan, M, Discacciati, V. Are economic evaluations and health technology assessments increasingly demanded in times of rationing health services? The case of the Argentine financial crisis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:169–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Rubinstein, A, Pichon-Riviere, A, Augustovski, F. Development and implementation of health technology assessment in Argentina: Two steps forward and one step back. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):260–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Sorenson, C, Drummond, M, Kanavos, P. Ensuring value for money in health care: Then role of health technology assessment in the European Union. Copenhagen: PAHO, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2008.Google Scholar
19. Velasco-Garrido, M, Busse, R. Health technology assessment: An introduction on objectives, role of evidence, and structure in Europe. Brussels: WHO, European observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2005.Google Scholar
20. Velasco-Garrido, M, Perleth, M, Drummond, M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Working group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361–422.Google Scholar