Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:43:55.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Topic selection process in health technology assessment agencies around the world: a systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2022

Yingpeng Qiu Open the ORCID record for Yingpeng Qiu [Opens in a new window] ,
Praveen Thokala ,
Simon Dixon Open the ORCID record for Simon Dixon [Opens in a new window] ,
Robert Marchand  and
Yue Xiao
Yingpeng Qiu*
Affiliation:
Department of Health Technology Assessment, China National Health Development Research Center, Xicheng District, Beijing, China School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Praveen Thokala
Affiliation:
School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Simon Dixon
Affiliation:
School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Robert Marchand
Affiliation:
Management school, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Yue Xiao
Affiliation:
Department of Health Technology Assessment, China National Health Development Research Center, Xicheng District, Beijing, China
*
Author for correspondence: Yingpeng Qiu, E-mail:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the process for topic selection by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies around the world to provide the knowledge base for the improvement of topic selection frameworks in HTA agencies.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE to identify papers up to February 2019. Gray literature was identified by screening the Web sites of HTA agencies on the nonprofit member list of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Data were extracted for each HTA agency and synthesized, with issues including general contextual information about each agency and the process of topic selection.

Results

Out of forty-nine nonprofit members of INAHTA, a total of seventeen HTA agencies with a framework for topic selection were identified from twenty-two included papers/documents. Multiple criteria were used for topic selection in all frameworks and agencies undertook multiple steps, which could include the specification of criteria for topic selection, identification of topics, short listing of potential topics, scoping of potential topics, scoring and ranking of potential topics, and deliberation and decision on final topics for HTA. Shortcomings were found in relation to methods of scoring and ranking as well as lack of monitoring and the evaluation of the process.

Conclusions

Our study provides insights into the current practice of topic selection in HTA agencies. Multiple criteria decision analysis methodology appears highly relevant to these processes. A consensus approach for the development of methods of topic selection would be valuable for the HTA community.

Keywords

Topic selectionPriority-settingHealth technology assessment
Type
Article Commentary
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , 2022 , e19
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by 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

Specchia, ML, Favale, M, Di Nardo, F, Rotundo, G, Favaretti, C, Ricciardi, W, et al. How to choose health technologies to be assessed by HTA? A review of criteria for priority setting. Epidemiol Prev. 2015;39:39–44.Google ScholarPubMed
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;23:310–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, FB, Husereau, D, Huić, M, Drummond, M, Berger ML, Bond, K, et al. Identifying the need for good practices in health technology assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA council working group report on good practices in HTA. Value Health. 2019;22:13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oortwijn, WP, Determann, DP, Schiffers, KM, Tan, SSP, van der Tuin, JM. Towards integrated health technology assessment for improving decision making in selected countries. Value Health. 2017;20:1121–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neumann, PJ, Drummond, MF, Jönsson, B, Luce, BR, Schwartz, JS, Siebert, U, et al. Are Key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:71–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Henshall, C, Oortwijn, W, Stevens, A, Granados, A, Banta, D. Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. Priority setting subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:144–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Castro, HEKR, Suharlim, C. A roadmap for systematic priority setting and health technology. Assessment (HTA). 2020. Available from: https://www.msh.org/resources/a-roadmap-for-systematic-priority-setting-and-health-technology-assessment-hta-a-practical [accessed Oct 1 2021].Google Scholar
Oortwijn, WJM, Baltussen, R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes: A practical guide for HTA bodies for legitimate benefit package design (Version 2.0). Nijmegen, 2021. Available from: https://www.radboudumc.nl/getmedia/17a96fdb-553b-4e68-81ab-4d8d9a7f9ff1/Guide-on-EDPs-2nd-version.aspx [accessed Oct 1 2021].Google Scholar
Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jonsson, B, Luce, BR, Neumann, PJ, Siebert, U, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagenfeldt, K, Asua, J, Bellucci, S, Jensen, MF, Morland, B, Oortwijn, W, et al. Systems for routine information sharing in HTA. Working Goup 2 Report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:273–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Altes, A, Ondategui-Parra, S, Neumann, PJ. Cross-national comparison of technology assessment processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:300–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehnavieh, R. Systematic review of prioritization criteria for topics of HTA projects suggestions for Iran. J Novel Appl Sci. 2015;4:940–46.Google Scholar
Husereau, D, Boucher, M, Noorani, H. Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:341–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, B, Morris, R, Mandava, L, Murthy, L, Gallo, H, Ong, KJ, et al. Identifying and selecting new procedures for health technology assessment: A decade of nice experience in the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:454–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlsson, P. Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:44–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Youngkong, S, Baltussen, R, Tantivess, S, Mohara, A, Teerawattananon, Y. Multicriteria decision analysis for including health interventions in the universal health coverage benefit package in Thailand. Value Health. 2012;15:961–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guest, G. Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waithaka, D, Tsofa, B, Barasa, E. Evaluating healthcare priority setting at the meso level: A thematic review of empirical literature. Wellcome Open Res. 2018;3:2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page, MJ, McKenzie, JE, Bossuyt, PM, Boutron, I, Hoffmann, TC, Mulrow, CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oortwijn, WJ, Vondeling, H, Van Barneveld, T, Van Vugt, C, Bouter, LM. Priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: Principles and practice. Health Policy. 2002;62:227–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jankauskiene, D, Petronyte, G. A model for HTA priority setting: Experience in Lithuania. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:450–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosherbayeva, L, Hailey, D, Kurakbaev, K, Tabarov, A, Kumar, A, Gutzskaya, G, et al. A process of prioritizing topics for health technology assessment in Kazakhstan. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32:147–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shani, S, Siebzehner, MI, Luxenburg, O, Shemer, J. Setting priorities for the adoption of health technologies on a national level—The Israeli experience. Health Policy. 2000;54:169–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bastian, H, Scheibler, F, Knelangen, M, Zschorlich, B, Nasser, M, Waltering, A. Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: The development of priority-setting criteria for patients’ and consumers’ interests. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:348–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Topic Identification and Prioritization Process. 2015. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/ [accessed Jan 14 2019].Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Topic selection. 2018. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/topic-selection#ta-selection [accessed Jan 15 2019].Google Scholar
The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. Summary of assessment procedure. 2012. Available from: https://www.zonmw.nl/fileadmin/zonmw/documenten/Corporate/Engelse_website/ZonMw_summary_assessment_procedure.pdf [accessed Jan 16 2019].Google Scholar
Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services. Assessment of method in health care. 2018. Available from: https://www.sbu.se/contentassets/76adf07e270c48efaf67e3b560b7c59c/eng_metodboken.pdf [accessed Jan 16 2019].Google Scholar
The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. General method (version 5.0). 2017. Available from: https://www.iqwig.de/en/methods/methods-paper.3020.html [accessed Jan 17 2019].Google Scholar
Health Technology Wales. Our appraisal process. 2019. Available from: http://www.healthtechnology.wales/about/our-appraisal-process/ [accessed Jan 17, 2019].Google Scholar
Health Information and Quality Autority. A guide to health technology assessment at HIQA. 2016. Available from: https://www.hiqa.ie/sites/default/files/2017-01/A-Guide-to-Health-Technology-Assessment.pdf [accessed Jan 17 2019].Google Scholar
Health Quality Ontario. Health technology assessment: Process and method guide. 2018. Available from: https://www.hqontario.ca/Portals/0/documents/evidence/reports/hta-methods-and-process-guide-en.pdf [accessed Jan 18 2019].Google Scholar
Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre. Topic selection for the annual programme. 2019. Available from: https://kce.fgov.be/en/topic-selection-for-the-annual-programme [accessed Jan 17 2019].Google Scholar
Agency for Care Effectiveness.Medical technology evaluation methods and process guide. 2018. Available from: http://www.ace-hta.gov.sg/public-data/our-process-and-methods/ACE%20methods%20and%20process%20guide%20for%20drug%20evaluation%20(5%20Feb%202018).pdf [accessed Jan 18 2019].Google Scholar
The Malaysian Health Technology Assessment Section. Health technology assessment mannual. 2018. Available from: http://www.moh.gov.my/penerbitan/mymahtas/HTA_MANUAL_MAHTAS.pdf [accessed Jan 18 2019].Google Scholar
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. EHC program topic nomination and selection. 2019. Available from: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/about/epc/nomination/ [accessed January 18, 2019].Google Scholar
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Guide to understanding health technology assessment (HTA). 2018. Available from: http://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ICER-Guide-to-Understanding-Health-Technology-Assessment-6.19.18.pdf [accessed Jan 17 2019].Google Scholar
Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program. Health technology assessment process guidelines. 2012. Available from: http://www.hitap.net/en/documents/18966 [accessed Jan 15 2019].Google Scholar
Migliore, A, Perrini, MR, Jefferson, T, Cerbo, M. Implementing a national early awareness and alert system for new and emerging health technologies in Italy: The COTE project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:321–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douw, K, Vondeling, H, Oortwijn, W. Priority setting for horizon scanning of new health technologies in Denmark: Views of health care stakeholders and health economists. Health Policy. 2006;76:334–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DiStefano, MJ, Krubiner, CB. Beyond the numbers: A critique of quantitative multi-criteria decision analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:292–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, G, Wu, EQ, Ahn, J, Kamae, I, Xie, J, Yang, H. The development of health technology assessment in Asia: Current Status and future trends. Value Health Reg Issues. 2020;21:39–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorenson, C, Chalkidou, K. Reflections on the evolution of health technology assessment in Europe. Health Econ Policy Law. 2012;7:25–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Babigumira, JB, Jenny, AM, Bartlein, R, Stergachis, A, Garrison, LP Jr. Health technology assessment in low- and middle-income countries: A landscape assessment. J Pharm Health Serv Res. 2016;7:37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oortwijn, WJ, Vondeling, H, Bouter, L. The use of societal criteria in priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: Initial experiences and future challenges. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:226–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsh, K, Goetghebeur, M, Thokala, P, Baltussen, R. Multi-criteria decision analysis to support healthcare decisions; Springer International Publishing. 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, KD, Sculpher, M, Caro, JJ, Tervonen, T. The Use of MCDA in HTA: Great potential, but more effort needed. Value Health. 2018;21:394–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thokala, P, Devlin, N, Marsh, K, Baltussen, R, Boysen, M, Kalo, Z, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making–An Introduction: Report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016;19:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, K, Lanitis, T, Neasham, D, Orfanos, P, Caro, J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: A review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32:345–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Facey, KM. Patient involvement in HTA: What added value? Pharm Policy Law. 2011;13:245–51.Google Scholar
Wale, JL, Scott, AM, Bertelsen, N, Meade, N. Strengthening international patient advocacy perspectives on patient involvement in HTA within the HTAi patient and citizen involvement interest group—Commentary. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Facey, K, Boivin, A, Gracia, J, Hansen, HP, Lo Scalzo, A, Mossman, J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abelson, J, Wagner, F, DeJean, D, Boesveld, S, Gauvin, FP, Bean, S, et al. Public and patient involvement in health technology assessment: A framework for action. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32:256–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muhlbacher, AC, Kaczynski, A. Making good decisions in healthcare with multi-criteria decision analysis: The use, current research and future development of MCDA. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14:29–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Qiu et al. supplementary material

Qiu et al. supplementary material

Download Qiu et al. supplementary material(File)
File 347.6 KB