Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T07:11:02.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Societal Criteria in Priority Setting for Health Technology Assessment in the Netherlands: Initial Experiences and Future Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Wija J. Oortwijn ,
Hindrik Vondeling  and
Lex Bouter
Wija J. Oortwijn
Affiliation:
TNO Prevention and Health
Hindrik Vondeling
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Lex Bouter
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Priority setting for the evaluation of health technologies in the Netherlands is exclusively based on the scientific merits of individual research proposals. This process has not resulted in satisfactory allocation of resources. Therefore, societal criteria for setting priorities for health technology assessment have been proposed as an adjunct to scientific criteria. These societal criteria include the burden of disease, uncertainty about the (cost-)effectiveness of the intervention at issue, the potential benefits of the research project, and its potential impact on health care. To realize the full potential of this model for priority setting, a number of methodological issues need to be addressed. Joint efforts of researchers and policy makers in this field are necessary for future progress.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , Spring 1998 , pp. 226 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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.Ament, A. J. H. A.Het stellen van prioriteiten in de gezondheidszorg: Het selecteren van waardevolle interventies en protocollen [Setting priorities in health care: Selecting useful interventions and protocols]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie, 1994, 107, 329–39.Google Scholar
2.Ament, A. J. H. A., & Mater, P.Top-down benadering in het kader van Technology Assessment: Evaluatie van de prioriteitenlijst van de Ziekenfondsraad [Top-down approach in the context of Technology Assessment: Assessment of the priority list of the Dutch Health Insurance Fund Council]. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg, 1995, 73, 401–05.Google Scholar
3.Banta, H. D., Oortwijn, W. J., Van Beekum, W. T.The organization of health care technology assessment in the Netherlands. The Hague: Rathenau Institute, 1995.Google Scholar
4.Boer, A.Prioriteiten voor Technology Assessment: Is er een gouden standaard? [Priorities for technology assessment: Is there a gold standard?] Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezond-heidszorg,1995, 73, 405–07.Google Scholar
5.Bonsel, G. J.De markt van de gezondheidszorginformatie [The market of health care information]. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg, 1995, 73, 410–13.Google Scholar
6.Bonsel, G. J., & Rutten, F. F. H.Medische ‘technology assessment’: Goede raad is duur?[Health technology assessment: Value for money?] Medisch Contact, 1990,16, 512–16.Google Scholar
7.Bouter, L. M.Naar een rationele prioritering van onderzoek [Toward rational priority setting for research]. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg, 1995, 73, 399–400.Google Scholar
8.Bouter, L. M.Meta-analyse: Controleerbaar en reproduceerbaar literatuuronderzoek als basis voor rationele beslissingen in de gezondheidszorg. [Meta-analysis: Verifiable and reproducible literature research as a basis for rational decision making in health care]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
9.Bouter, L. M.Onderzoeksfinanciering: Aanbesteding of open inschrijving? [redactioneel]. [Funding for research: top-down or bottom-up? (editorial)]. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg, 1994, 72, 59.Google Scholar
10.Bouter, L. M.Maatschappelijke criteria voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek [Societal criteria for scientific research]. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg, 1994, 72, 98–99.Google Scholar
11.Chalmers, I.What do I want from health research and researchers when I am a patient? British Medical Journal, 1995, 310, 1315–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Donaldson, M. S., & Sox, H. C. (eds.). Setting priorities for health technology assessment: A model process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992.Google Scholar
13.Eddy, D. M.Selecting technologies for assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 5, 485–501.Google Scholar
14.Essink-Bot, M. L., & Bonsel, G. J.Naar standaardisatie van het instrumentarium voor het meten van de gezond heidstoestand [Toward standardization of instruments for measuring health status]. Huisarts en Wetenschap, 1995, 38, 117–21.Google Scholar
15.Gunning-Schepers, L. J.Het ontbrekende stukje van de puzzel [The missing part of the puzzle]. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg, 1995, 73, 413–14.Google Scholar
16.Guyatt, G., Sackett, D. L., Sinclair, J. C., et al. , for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. User’s guides to the medical literature, IX: A method for grading health care recommendations. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995, 274, 1800–04.Google Scholar
17.Hayward, R. S. A., Wilson, M. C., Tunis, S. R., et al. , for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. User's guides to the medical literature, VIII: How to use clinical practice guidelines, A: Are the recommendations valid? Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995, 274, 570-74.Google Scholar
18.Health Council. Advisering verstrekkingenpakket [Advice benefit package]. No. U 1052 Den Haag: Health Council, 1996.Google Scholar
19.Health Insurance Fund Council. Rapport Doelmatigheid in de zorg [Efficiency of care]. No. 1996/726. Amstelveen: Health Insurance Fund Council, 1996.Google Scholar
20.Health Insurance Fund Council. Jaarverslag Ontwikkelingsgeneeskunde 1995. [Annual report: Investigative medicine 1995]. Amstelveen: Health Insurance Fund Council, 1996.Google Scholar
21.Health Insurance Fund Council. Jaarverslag Ontwikkelingsgeneeskunde 1994. [Annual report: Investigative medicine 1994]. Amstelveen: Health Insurance Fund Council, 1995.Google Scholar
22.Health Insurance Fund Council. Advies kosten-effectiviteitsanalyse bestaande verstrekkingen [Advice concerning the cost-effectiveness analysis of existing provisions]. No. 597. Amstelveen: Health Insurance Fund Council, 1993.Google Scholar
23.Health Insurance Fund Council. Grenzen aan de groei van het verstrekkingenpakket: Eerste advies [Recommendation on limits to the expansion of the benefit package: First advice]. Amstelveen: Health Insurance Fund Council, 1983.Google Scholar
24.Huisjes, H. J.Ontwikkelingsgeneeskunde onderweg [Investigative medicine under way]. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg, 1992, 70, 484–86.Google Scholar
25.Kleijnen, J., de Vet, H. C. W., Rinkel, G. J. E., & Keirse, M. J. N. C.De Cochrane Collaboration: Systematische overzichten van kennis uit gerandomiseerd onderzoek [The Cochrane Collaboration: Systematic reviews of knowledge resulting from randomized trials]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, 1995, 139, 1478–82.Google Scholar
26.Koopmanschap, M. A., van Roijen, L., & Bonneux, L.Kosten van ziekten in Nederland [Cost of diseases in the Netherlands]. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam, Department of Public Health, 1991.Google Scholar
27.Lara, M. E., & Goodman, C.National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies. Washington, DC: Academy Press, 1990.Google Scholar
28.Mastenbroek, C. G.Maatschappelijke criteria en de toepassing daarvan in de beoordeling van ontwikkelingsgeneeskundige projecten [Application of societal criteria in assessing research proposal submitted to the Investigative Medicine Fund]. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg, 1994, 72, 105–06.Google Scholar
29.Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport. Voortgangsrapportage medische technology assessment (MTA) en doelmatigheid van zorg [Progress report on medical technology assessment and efficiency in health care]. Rijswijk: Ministry of Health, 1997.Google Scholar
30.Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Sport. Medical technology assessment and efficiency in health care. Rijswijk: Ministry of Health, 1996.Google Scholar
31.Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek. Trends in de wetenschap [Trends in science]. Achtergronddocument bij ‘Kennis verrijkt,’ beleidsnota NWO 1996–2001. The Hague: NWO, 1995.Google Scholar
32.Oortwijn, W. J., Ament, A. J. H. A., & Vondeling, H.Toepassing van maatschappelijke criteria bij de beoordeling van onderzoeksvoorstellen: Zinvol en uitvoerbaar? [Application of societal criteria for assessing research proposals: Useful and feasible?] Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg, 1994, 72, 99–101.Google Scholar
33.Peckham, M.A scientific basis for the National Health Service. Journal of Medical Engineering Technology, 1994, 18, 134–37.Google Scholar
34.Peckham, M.Central research and development committee for the NHS. 1991.Google Scholar
35.Phelps, C. E., & Parente, S. T.Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Medical Care, 1990, 28, 703–23.Google Scholar
36.Raad voor Gezondheidsonderzoek. Chronische aandoeningen: Prioriteiten voor onderzoek [Chronic diseases: Priorities for research]. RGO-advies no. 7. The Hague: RGO, 1991.Google Scholar
37.Rovira, J.Standardizing economic appraisal of health technology in the European Community. Social Science and Medicine, 1994, 38,1675–78.Google Scholar
38.Ruwaard, D., & Kramers, P. G. N. (eds.). Volksgezondheid Toekomst Verkenning: De gezondheidstoestand van de Nederlandse bevolking in de periode 1950–2010 [Exploring the future of public health]. The Hague: Sdu Uitgeverij, 1993.Google Scholar
39.Stuurgroep Toekomstscenario’s Gezondheidszorg. Kostenberekening bij gezondheidszor-gonderzoek: Richtlijnen voor de praktijk [Guidelines for cost calculations in health services research]. Rijswijk: STG 1993.Google Scholar
40.The World Bank. World Development Report 1993. Investing in health: World development indicators. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
41.Van Ark, G. (ed.). Strategienota 1996–2001 [Strategy report 1996–2001]. NWO-Medische Wetenschappen. The Hague: NWO, 1995.Google Scholar
42.Van de Meer, J.De top-50 van de Ziekenfondsraad [The top-50 of the Dutch Health Insurance Council]. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg, 1995, 73, 408–09.Google Scholar
43.Voorhorst, F. J.Prioriteiten bij het Praeventiefonds [Priorities of the Prevention Fund]. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg, 1994, 72, 106–07.Google Scholar
44.Warren, K. S., & Mosteller, F. (eds.). Doing more good than harm: The evaluation of health care interventions. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1993.Google Scholar
45.Wilson, M. C., Hayward, R. S. A., Tunis, S. R., et al. , for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. User’s guides to the medical literature. VIII: How to use clinical practice guidelines, B: What are the recommendations and will they help you in caring for your patients? Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995, 274, 1630–32.Google Scholar