Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:58:40.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Don Husereau ,
Michel Boucher  and
Hussein Noorani
Don Husereau
Affiliation:
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)
Michel Boucher
Affiliation:
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)
Hussein Noorani
Affiliation:
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe a current practical approach of priority setting of health technology assessment (HTA) research that involves multi-criteria decision analysis and a deliberative process.

Methods: Criteria related to HTA prioritization were identified and grouped through a systematic review and consultation with a selection committee. Criteria were scored through a pair-wise comparison approach. Criteria were pruned based on the average weights obtained from consistent (consistency index < 0.2) responders and consensus. HTA proposals are ranked based on available information and a weighted criteria score. The rank, along with additional contextual information and discussion among committee members, is used to achieve consensus on HTA research priorities.

Results: Six of eleven criteria represented > 75 percent of the weight behind committee member decisions to conduct an HTA. These criteria were disease burden, clinical impact, alternatives, budget impact, economic impact, and available evidence. Since May 2006, committees have considered 102 proposals at sixteen biannual in-person advisory committee meetings. These have selected twenty-nine research priorities for the HTA program.

Conclusions: The approach works well and was easy to implement. Feedback from committee members has been positive. This approach may assist HTA and other research agencies in better priority setting by informing the selection of the most important and policy-relevant topics in the presence of a wide variety of research proposals. This may in turn lead to efficiently allocating resources available for HTA research.

Keywords

Health prioritiesTechnology assessmentBiomedicalOrganizational objectivesPriority setting
Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 341 - 347
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. Battista, RN, Côté, B, Hodge, MJ, Husereau, D. Health technology assessment in Canada. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):53–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Culyer, AJ, Lomas, J. Deliberative processes and evidence-informed decision making in healthcare: Do they work and how might we know? Evid Policy. 2006;2:357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dodgson, JS, Spackman, M, Pearman, A, Phillips, LD. Multi-criteria analysis: A manual. London: Department for Communities and Local Government; 2009.Google Scholar
4. Donaldson, MS, Sox, HC, eds. Setting priorities for health technology assessment: A model process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992.Google Scholar
5. Doyle, J, Waters, E, Yach, D, et al. Global priority setting for Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59:193–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jönsson, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Eddy, DM. Selecting technologies for assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5:484–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Evidence-Based Care Resource Group. Evidence-based care: 1. Setting priorities: How important is the problem? Can Med Assoc J. 1994;150:1249–1254.Google Scholar
9. Henshall, C, Oortwijn, W, Stevens, A, Granados, A, Banta, D. Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. A paper produced by the Priority Setting Subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:144–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Innvaer, S, Vist, G, Trommald, M, Oxman, A. Health policy-makers perceptions of their use of evidence: A systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:239–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Lara, ME, Goodman, C. National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy press; 1990.Google Scholar
12. Menon, D, Stafinski, T. Health technology assessment in Canada: 20 years strong? Value Health. 2009;12 (Suppl 2):S14–S19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Neumann, PJ, Rosen, AB, Greenberg, D, et al. Can we better prioritize resources for cost-utility research? Med Decis Making. 2005;429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Noorani, HZ, Husereau, DR, Boudreau, R, Skidmore, B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:310–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Phelps, CE, Parente, ST. Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Med Care. 1990;28:703–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Saaty, TL, Vargas, LG. Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Townsend, J, Buxton, M, Harper, G. Prioritisation of health technology assessment. The PATHS model: Methods and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed