Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T05:41:53.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Six years' experience with interdisciplinary review teams in health technology assessment in Norway

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2005

Lise Lund Håheim ,
Berit Mørland ,
Torbjørn Fosen Wisløff  and
Anita Lyngstadaas
Lise Lund Håheim
Affiliation:
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
Berit Mørland
Affiliation:
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
Torbjørn Fosen Wisløff
Affiliation:
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
Anita Lyngstadaas
Affiliation:
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of interdisciplinary review teams that have been the main and central work form in making health technology assessments at the Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment.

Methods: Evaluation questionnaires were sent to all 112 participants in the 17 review teams for the period of January 1998 to June 2003 after completion of the literature assessment. Questions were on the theme/mandate of the assessments, composition of the review team, organization of the work, the working method, and update of the report.

Results: The teams ranged from 4 to 14 persons regarded as opinion leaders in their field. The project periods lasted from 4 to 33 months. In all, fifty-five participants gave fifty-eight responses (51.8 percent) to the questionnaires. A total of 83 percent thought the theme was well argued, and 62 percent thought the mandate for the assessments was sufficiently clear. Approximately 80 percent were positive to the composition of the review team. In all, 22 percent expressed that the work method was too extensive and 43 percent wanted more tuition. General comments were that the working method gave competence in assessing medical literature, relevant professional training, and tuition in a working method that ensured the legitimacy of their work.

Conclusions: The review team participants were satisfied with most aspects of the work. The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment will continue using interdisciplinary review teams in making health technology assessments.

Keywords

EvaluationHealth technology assessmentQuestionnaire
Type
RESEARCH REPORTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , October 2005 , pp. 526 - 531
Copyright
© 2005 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

2000 Gene therapy—current status and possibilities in clinical medicine. SMM report no. 1/2000. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
Hailey D, Menon D. 1999 A short history of INAHTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 15: 236– 242.Google Scholar
Health Technology Assessment. An introduction. In Norwegian. Available at: www.kunnskapssenteret.no/smm.
2000 Heart laser treatment. SMM report no. 6/2000. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
2002 Hip replacement therapy. SMM report no. 6/2002. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
2003 Hormone replacement therapy after breast cancer. SMM report no. 2/2003. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
http://www.ecahi.org/.
http://www.kunnskapssenteret.no/smm/Publikasjoner/FramesetPublikasjoner.htm.
2002 Implantable defibrillator. SMM report no. 1/2002. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
2002 Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). SMM report no. 3/2002. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
Jonsson E. 2002 Development of health technology assessment in Europa. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 18: 171– 183.Google Scholar
2001 Lumbar disc herniation with root affection. SMM report no. 1/2001. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
Lund Håheim L, Mørland B. 2003 Health technology assessment–a systematic approach for evaluation of the scientific documentation of medical technologies. In Norwegian. Norsk Epidemiologi. 13: 309– 314.Google Scholar
Mørland B. 2003 Experiences form 5 years of health technology assessment in Norway. In Norwegian. Tidsskr Nor Lægeforen. 123: 1213– 1215.Google Scholar
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRDs Guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD report number 4. 2nd ed. UK: University of York; March 2001.
2002 PCI for acute myocardial infarction. SMM report no. 5/2002. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
2000 Photodynamic therapy for age related macule degeneration. SMM report no. 3/2000. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
2003 Planned caesarean section of breech birth at term. SMM report no. 3/2003. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
2000 Positron emission tomography (PET)—diagnostikk og klinisk nytteverdi. SMM report no. 8/2000. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
2003 Primary treatment of ovarian cancer. SMM report no. 5/2003. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
1999 Screening for prostate cancer. SMM report no. 3/1999. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
1999 SPSS version 12.0.1. Chicago: SPSS Inc.;
2001 Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression. SMM report no. 6/2001. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
2002 Treating prostate cancer with brachytherapy. SMM report no. 2/2002. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
2000 Use of ultrasonography in the primary health care setting. SMM report no. 4/2001. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;
2000 Whiplash injuries. SMM report no. 5/2000. Oslo: The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment;