Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:32:57.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SURGEONS’ VIEWS OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN AUSTRALIA: ONLINE PILOT SURVEY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2013

Gisselle Gallego ,
Kees van Gool ,
Robert Casey  and
Guy Maddern
Gisselle Gallego
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Research, School of Medicine, University of Western SydneyFaculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney
Kees van Gool
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University Technology Sydney
Robert Casey
Affiliation:
Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation (CHERE), University Technology Sydney
Guy Maddern
Affiliation:
Discipline of Surgery, University of Adelaide, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction: Many governments have introduced health technology assessment (HTA) as an important tool to manage the uptake and use of health-related technologies efficiently. Although surgeons play a central role in the uptake and diffusion of new technologies, little is known about their opinion and understanding of the HTA role and process.

Methods: A cross-sectional pilot study was conducted using an online questionnaire which was distributed to Fellows of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons over a 4-week period. Information was sought about knowledge and views of the HTA process. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data, frequencies, and proportions were calculated.

Results: Sixty-two surgeons completed the survey; of these, 55 percent reported their primary work place as a public hospital. Twenty-four percent of the participants reported that they had never heard of the HTA agency and 60 percent reported that surgical procedures are most likely to be introduced in the Australian healthcare system at the public hospital level (which is beyond the HTA's scope and dealt with at a state level). However, 61 percent considered that decisions about funding and adoption of new technologies should take place at the national level.

Conclusions: This survey provides some evidence that many surgeons remain unaware of the federal government's HTA process but still value evidence-based information. In order for HTA to be an effective aid to rational adoption of health-related technologies, there is a need for an evidence-based approach that is integrated and is accepted and understood by the medical professions.

Keywords

SurgeonsHealth technology assessmentAustraliaSurgical procedures
Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 309 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.Australia. Productivity Commission. Impacts of advances in medical technology in Australia: Productivity Commission research report. Melbourne: Productivity Commission; 2005.Google Scholar
2.Hatlie, MJ. Climbing ‘the learning curve’. New technologies, emerging obligations. JAMA. 1993;270:1364–1365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Stafinski, T, Topfer, LA, Zakariasen, K, Menon, D. The role of surgeons in identifying emerging technologies for health technology assessment. Can J Surg. 2010;53:86–92.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Riskin, DJ, Longaker, MT, Gertner, M, Krummel, TM. Innovation in surgery: A historical perspective. Ann Surg. 2006;244:686–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Wilson, CB. Adoption of new surgical technology. BMJ. 2006;332:112–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Rashiq, S, Barton, P, Harstall, C, Schopflocher, D, Taenzer, P. The Alberta Ambassador Program: Delivering Health Technology Assessment results to rural practitioners. BMC Med Educ. 2006;6:21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.McGregor, M, Brophy, JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: a way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:263–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Wild, C, Langer, T. Emerging health technologies: Informing and supporting health policy early. Health Policy. 2008;87:160–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Australian hospital statistics 2010–11. Health services series no. 43. Cat. no. HSE 117. Canberra: AIHW2012.Google Scholar
10.Medical Services Advisory Committee. Funding for new medical technologies and procedures: application and assessment guidelines. Canberra 2005 [updated 10 October 2006]. http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/guidelines-1 (accessed May 29, 2007).Google Scholar
11.Gallego, G, Casey, R, Norman, R, Goodall, S. Introduction and uptake of new medical technologies in the Australian health care system: A qualitative study. Health Policy. 2011;102:152–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Charmaz, K. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2006.Google Scholar
13.Department of Surgery of the Calgary Health Region. Local health technology assessment program. 2005. http://www.calgaryhealthregion.ca/surgery/officesurgicalresearch/HTA.htm (accessed May 7, 2007).Google Scholar
14.Reeves, B. Health-technology assessment in surgery. Lancet. 1999;353:3–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health technologies and decision making. Paris: OECD; 2005.Google Scholar
16.Maddern, GJ. Evidence-based medicine in practice–surgery. Med J Aust. 2001;174:528–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). HTA in hospitals. 2012. http://www.cadth.ca/products/environmental-scanning/health-technology-update/htupdate-issue-13/hta-in-hospitals (accessed October 20, 2012).Google Scholar
18.Lehoux, P, Denis, J-L, Rock, M, Hivon, M, Tailliez, S. How medical specialists appraise three controversial health innovations: scientific, clinical and social arguments. Sociol Health Illn. 2010;32:123–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). Who works for SBU? Stockholm: 2011. http://www.sbu.se/en/About-SBU/Who-Works-for-SBU2/ (accessed October 20, 2012).Google Scholar
20.Institute of Health Economics. What is the Alberta Ambassador Program (AAP)? Edmonton: 2012. http://www.ihe.ca/research/–the-alberta-ambassador-program/–overview/ (accessed October 20, 2012).Google Scholar
21.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE fellowships. 2012. http://www.nice.org.uk/getinvolved/nice_fellows_and_scholars/fellows/NICEFellowships.jsp (accessed October 20, 2012).Google Scholar