Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:23:48.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Setting the future policy agenda for health technology assessment: A specialty mapping approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2007

Jonathan Shepherd ,
Jackie Briggs ,
Liz Payne ,
Claire Packer ,
Lynn Kerridge  and
Martin Ashton-Key
Jonathan Shepherd
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Jackie Briggs
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Liz Payne
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Claire Packer
Affiliation:
The University of Birmingham
Lynn Kerridge
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Martin Ashton-Key
Affiliation:
South Central Strategic Health Authority
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: There is a need for innovative methodologies to identify and prioritize topics for health technology assessment (HTA). A pilot project to evaluate the methodology for specialty mapping was undertaken in the area of child and adolescent health. Two case studies are presented, in the area of sexually transmitted infections and acute pain.

Methods: The methodology comprised sequential stages, based on principles of systematic review. A “stakeholder model” encouraged wider participation. Key stages included identifying the topic area and setting the scope; developing a care pathway; searching for clinical guidelines/guidance, and evaluation literature; synthesis and mapping of literature to the “nodes” of the care pathway to highlight gaps; prioritizing the topics with stakeholders; and referring priorities to the appropriate agencies.

Results: A total of thirty guidelines/guidance documents and sixteen evaluation studies were mapped across the two case studies. In some nodes of the care pathway, more literature was mapped than others, suggesting important gaps in research and policy guidance. Sixty-two policy questions were identified and were rated by stakeholders in prioritization workshops. The highest priorities have been considered by senior committees for likely commissioning as research or guidelines/guidance.

Conclusions: This is one of the few published examples of innovative methodology to identify and prioritize topics for HTA. Specialty mapping can make a positive contribution to the policy agenda, with several research and policy gaps being fed into existing prioritization channels. Adequate time, resources, and capacity is required particularly in engaging stakeholders and developing a care pathway. Implementation of specialty mapping in other topic areas with on-going evaluation is recommended.

Keywords

Health policyTechnology assessmentbiomedicalEvidence-based medicine
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 405 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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.Bandolier. Integrated care pathway. Available at: http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/glossary/ICP.html. Accessed 12/8/06.Google Scholar
2.de Vet, HC, Kroese, ME, Scholten, RJ, et al. A method for research programming in the field of evidence-based medicine. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:433–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Department of Health. Strategic reviews for research and development: Coronary heart disease. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/02/08/25/04020825.pdf. Accessed 12/8/06.Google Scholar
4.Department of Health. Strategic reviews for research and development: Mental health main report. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/02/09/22/04020922.pdf. Accessed 12/8/06.Google Scholar
5.Department of Health. Effective sexual health promotion: A toolkit for PCTs and others working in the field of promoting good sexual health and HIV prevention. London: HMSO; 2003.Google Scholar
6.Department of Health. National service frameworks for children, young people and maternity services. London: HMSO; 2004.Google Scholar
7.Department of Health. Patient pathways. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/OrganisationPolicy/SecondaryCare/TreatmentCentres/TreatmentCentresArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4097263&chk=RGATY4. Accessed 12/8/06.Google Scholar
8.Ellis, S, Barnett-Page, E, Morgan, A, et al. HIV prevention: A review of reviews assessing the effectiveness of interventions to reduce the risk of sexual transmission. Evidence briefing. London: Health Development Agency; 2003.Google Scholar
9.Ellis, S, Grey, A. Prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs): A review of reviews into the effectiveness of non-clinical interventions. Evidence briefing. London: Health Development Agency; 2004.Google Scholar
10.Elwy, AR, Hart, GJ, Hawkes, S, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections and human immunodeficiency virus in heterosexual men: A systematic review. Review; 63 refs. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:1818–1830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Murphy, MK, Black, NA, Lamping, DL, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Review; 287 refs. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:1–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. 2nd ed.York: York Publishing Services Ltd; 2001.Google Scholar
13.O'Toole, L, Nurse, P, Radda, G. An analysis of cancer research funding in the UK. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003;3:139–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Oliver, S, Peersman, G. Using research for effective health promotion. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
15.Rees, R, Kavanagh, J, Burchett, H, et al. HIV health promotion and men who have sex with men (MSM): A systematic review of research relevant to the development and implementation of effective and appropriate interventions. London: EPPI-Centre, Institute of Education, University of London; 2004.Google Scholar
16.Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Management of genital chlamydia trachomatis infection. Edinburgh: Royal College of Physicians; 2000.Google Scholar
17.Shepherd, J, Harden, A, Rees, R, et al. Young people and healthy eating: A systematic review of research on barriers and facilitators. Health Educ Res. 2006;21:239–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Somekh, B.Action research: A methodology for change and development. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
19.The Agree Collaboration. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation - Agree Instrument. Available at: http://www.agreecollaboration.org/pdf/agreeinstrumentfinal.pdf. Accessed 13/8/06.Google Scholar
20.Hart, E.Action research for health and social care: A guide to practice. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
21.UK Clinical Research Collaboration. UK Health Research Analysis (accessed 13/8/06). http://www.ukcrc.org/PDF/UKCRC_Health_Research_Analysis_Report.pdf.Google Scholar