To provide an overview of learning strategies that health technology assessment (HTA) agencies use worldwide to educate laypeople about HTA.

A scoping review focused on learning strategies to educate laypeople about HTA using the Joanna Briggs Institute frameworks was conducted across databases and gray literature. The study reviewed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies from four databases, including practice documents from the HTA and health organization websites.

Fifteen studies were included in this review. The United Kingdom, Spain, and Canada mainly contributed to knowledge about educating laypeople in HTA. The main strategies employed were conference-like events, educational materials, training, and plain language. International HTA and health agencies developed courses, online training, and guidance materials to increase laypeople’s participation in the HTA process.

Efforts to improve public involvement in HTA focus on structured consultations, digital platforms, and capacity-building to enhance accessibility. Strategies like workshops and plain language aim to encourage lay participation, but challenges such as technical complexity and limited resources persist. Despite these challenges, incorporating patient perspectives has increased research relevance and public trust. Future studies should examine standardized frameworks for involvement, the impact of lay participation on policy, and solutions to barriers to a more equitable HTA process.

Health technology assessment (HTA) reports are written for healthcare decision makers, particularly in relation to reimbursement/pricing, and are intended to assess clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost. Four additional domains are further considered in what is called a “full HTA”: ethical, legal, social, and organizational aspects. The ethical aspects have long been the subject of debate regarding how they should be processed. It would be important if the following questions could be answered: Who publishes full HTA reports and how? Which methods are used in the ethics domain? What kind of results do they produce? However, such a “mapping of the field” turns out to be difficult. Despite the existence of international HTA registers, we were not able to compile a comprehensive sample of full HTA reports. Therefore, the aim of our study was rather to explore a) substantially: Which information can be expected to be (easily) found, which can only be obtained with considerable effort, and which remain (for the time being) in the dark? And b) methodologically: Is it possible to do meaningful meta-research in this field?

In the attempt to explore the possibilities of meta-research, we were able to track down and analyze thirty-nine full HTA reports from six countries.

While not representative of the whole field, this analysis shows the possibilities and challenges to meta-research, but nonetheless also provides some substantial insight into the characteristics of such reports, with a particular focus on the methods used to process ethical aspects.

As Ethiopia advances towards efficient resource utilization and UHC through strategic health purchasing, the institutionalization of HTA will play a critical role. This study aims to identify key stakeholders, analyze the political economy surrounding HTA and priority setting in Ethiopia, and assess existing skills and capacities for a robust and sustainable HTA system.

We employed a mixed-method approach, combining 16 key informant interviews, 24 document reviews, and a cross-sectional survey (n=65) to assess national HTA capacity. We employed the Walt and Gilson policy analysis triangle framework, alongside Campos and Reich’s framework, to evaluate the context, process, content, and actors influencing HTA institutionalization, and to explore the complex interplay of institutions, positions, power, and interests among various stakeholders.

While there is a general commitment to implementing HTA across various government agencies and stakeholder groups, the institutionalization process faces several challenges, involving multiple agencies with overlapping mandates, raises bureaucratic challenges and potential conflicts, risking horizontal fragmentation as agencies compete for authority, budget, and influence. The involvement of other key stakeholders, such as professional associations, patients, and the public, is notably lacking. Challenges such as limited HTA expertise, high professional turnover, and gaps in specific HTA knowledge areas persist, with capacity-building efforts often failing to address organizational needs effectively.

The complexity of HTA institutionalization in Ethiopia underscores the necessity of managing intricate inter-agency dynamics, establishing a robust legal framework for an inclusive and transparent HTA process, building local capacity, and securing sustainable, domestically aligned funding.

The aim of this policy article is twofold: (i) to provide a summary and update of recent important policy developments, in particular relevant guidance on the use of real-world data/real-world evidence (RWD/RWE) by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and (ii) to set out our policy recommendations on how the different elements of an “RWE framework” we have previously developed could support, further enhance and facilitate the use of RWE for HTA purposes and by HTA bodies and payers.

We undertook a targeted review and analysis of recent important policy developments. The aim was to build on our recommendations from previous work on the “RWE Framework,” and consider how the relevant tools from our Framework can further enhance and facilitate the use of RWE for HTA purposes and by HTA bodies/payers.

We provide eight conditions that we argue would, in combination, constitute the optimal use and acceptance of RWD/RWE for HTA. We believe that, should the eight conditions hold, RWD/RWE would enable more efficient access to medicines and healthcare technologies for patients.

High-quality, fit-for-purpose RWD/RWE can and should be used more frequently in HTA. Multi-stakeholder and cross-geography collaborative partnerships are needed to align on best practices to optimize the evidence that needs to be generated to satisfy all stakeholders’ needs.

Effective allocation of scarce healthcare resources involves complex ethical and technical evaluations, with decision makers sometimes utilizing a societal perspective in health technology assessment (HTA). This study aimed to explore societal perspectives on healthcare resource allocation within Australia’s HTA framework, focusing on the valuation of health gains for children and young people (CYP) compared to adults.

In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted with ten young people (aged 15–17) and twenty adults between October 2021 and April 2022. Participants were purposively sampled for diverse characteristics and completed an online information survey prior to the interviews, introducing relevant concepts. Interviews were analyzed using inductive coding, categorization, and constant comparison.

Participants expressed nuanced perspectives on HTA processes, generally opposing numeric weighting and preferring a deliberative approach based on committee judgment. Although most participants acknowledged some moral relevance of CYP status in HTA, opinions varied on its operationalization. A sizable minority, including those with extensive health system experience, did not view CYP status as morally relevant, though some noted specific service gaps for CYP (e.g., mental health care, pain management). Participants identified a spectrum of factors, both person-centered and intervention related, that often surpassed the relevance of CYP status, including addressing severity, unmet needs, prevention, and early intervention, with an emphasis on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

Our findings highlight the inherent challenges in navigating the complexities of HTA and the critical need for HTA frameworks to be adaptable and inclusive, effectively integrating societal preferences to enhance healthcare policy’s equity and responsiveness.

Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA) is a heterogeneous phenomenon constantly evolving to respond to the needs of decision-makers at the hospital level. In 2023, The HB-HTA Interest Group of Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) surveyed HB-HTA activities with the aim to provide an updated description of the actual scenario.

An online survey was conducted to gather data on the main characteristics of hospitals, HB-HTA activities, outputs, role in the decision-making processes, dissemination and training activities, and their interaction and collaboration with other stakeholders and HTA-related regulations. Finally, the survey collected feedback on the perception of and current barriers to HB-HTA. Three categories of responders were identified: Both hospitals performing and not performing HTA and policymakers.

Eighty-seven responses were collected from twenty-eight countries. Nearly half of the responders (n = 41) conducted HB-HTA, whereas eighteen consisted of hospitals not performing HTA, and twenty-eight were policy makers. HB-HTA was performed mainly in hospitals with >500 beds. HB-HTA units were organized in 40 percent of cases as an “independent group.” The survey showed that HTA units could contribute to all the steps of the decision-making processes, whereas the impact of the assessments on the decisions was mainly perceived as a medium. Furthermore, HB-HTA was not seen as a duplication of effort, even without specific regulations.

The survey highlighted the role of HB-HTA in hospital decision-making supporting the vision of HB-HTA as one of the actors in the HTA ecosystem, the success of which depends on collaboration with other stakeholders.

The methods of economic evaluation and HTA should be based on best practices and standards, tailored to unique country contexts that can be systematically applied to inform decisions. This paper outlines standards for the conduct of economic evaluations for HTA in Ghana.

A five-step process was followed to develop the HTA reference case as a methodological and reporting benchmark. These include (a) a review of literature and evidence synthesis, (b) a review of country policies, (c) a review and adaption of international frameworks, (d) expert/stakeholder consultations, and (e) the development of a methodological framework. A series of stakeholder consultations were done to refine, finalize, and validate the outcomes of the processes to generate a finalized reference case.

The Ghana reference case is made up of 14 components comprising: evidence synthesis, evaluation type, perspectives on cost, perspectives of outcomes, choice of comparator, data sources, outcome measures, discount rate, uncertainty, equity considerations, time horizon, heterogeneity, transparency, and budget impact. These provide methodological considerations and reporting requirements for economic evaluations for HTA. It provides a framework to ensure the best research methods are adopted to harmonize the evidence-generation process with the expectations of policy and decision-makers and ensure that policy decisions are based on uniform evidence.

Recommendations set out in this reference case when followed can provide context-specific evidence to support a rigorous and transparent system for evaluating healthcare interventions and technologies. It will support decision-making, ultimately improving the quality and efficiency of healthcare delivery in the country.

The need for more local technical capacity in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a leading challenge to its use in low- and middle-income countries. Zambia has been considering using HTA to support its universal health coverage initiative, which includes health benefits package design and implementation. This study assesses the local HTA capacity for the steering committee tasked with supporting the design and implementation of the national health benefits package in Zambia.

The study applied a cross-sectional web-based survey design and the consensus-based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies. Data were collected from the steering committee of the benefits package working group, tasked with leading the design process of the health benefits package using the Instrument for the Assessment of Skills to Conduct a Health Technology Assessment tool.

The majority of respondents had not served on a selection and reimbursement committee. Clinical effectiveness skills in structuring a search strategy, handling missing data, conducting qualitative evidence synthesis, and grading the certainty of evidence were low. Skills for leadership, networking, conflict management, and project coordination, public and patient involvement were mid-level to low. Most of the respondents were aware of ethical issues with health technologies. Health economics skills in economic evaluations and decision analytic modeling, equity and health system efficiency measurement, budget impact analysis, and quality of life were identified for capacity strengthening.

Available technical capacities to revise and implement the national benefits package were lower in health economics, synthesis for clinical effectiveness evidence, ethics, patient and public involvement, and soft skills, in that order.

This study comprehensively reviewed reports on patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health technology assessment (HTA) overseas and identified the status and possible future measures, of PPIE in Japanese HTA.

The series of reviews targeted systematic reviews (SR#1), references in SR#1 (SR#2), and new articles after SR#1 (SR#3). The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched through August 2024 using the terms “patient involvement/engagement,” “patient participation,” “community participation,” “public involvement/engagement,” and “health technology assessment.” The implementation details were extracted from information published on the websites of the HTA agencies.

Three review articles in SR#1, 12 references in SR#2, and 10 articles in SR#3 were selected. The opportunities for countries, including Japan, to participate in discussions on the HTA process did not differ significantly; however, information on PPIE in Japan was scarce and did not indicate their purpose and value.

Collected articles indicated that the value of PPIE in HTA includes relevance, equity, fairness, legitimacy, and capacity building. The participation of patient and public representatives in Japanese discussions since 2005 appeared to be very limited to consider PPIE in HTA. In countries that implement PPIE in HTA, the value of PPIE is explicit: the process guidelines are specific and provide an appropriate environment for input that includes education, training, and feedback. Future reforms of the Japanese system will require discussions on PPIE purpose and value, implementation, and creating an environment in which a diverse range of patients and the public can easily express their views.

Surrogate endpoints, used to substitute for and predict final clinical outcomes, are increasingly being used to support submissions to health technology assessment agencies. The increase in the use of surrogate endpoints has been accompanied by literature describing the frameworks and statistical methods to ensure their robust validation. The aim of this review was to assess how surrogate endpoints have recently been used in oncology technology appraisals by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales.

This article identifies technology appraisals in oncology published by NICE between February 2022 and May 2023. Data are extracted on the use and validation of surrogate endpoints including purpose, evidence base, and methods used.

Of the 47 technology appraisals in oncology available for review, 18 (38 percent) utilized surrogate endpoints, with 37 separate surrogate endpoints being discussed. However, the evidence supporting the validity of the surrogate relationship varied significantly across putative surrogate relationships with 11 providing randomized controlled trial evidence, 7 providing evidence from observational studies, 12 based on the clinical opinion, and 7 providing no evidence for the use of surrogate endpoints.

This review supports the assertion that surrogate endpoints are frequently used in oncology technology appraisals in England and Wales and despite the increasing availability of statistical methods and guidance on appropriate validation of surrogate endpoints, this review highlights that use and validation of surrogate endpoints can vary between technology appraisals, which can lead to uncertainty in decision making.

The EUnetHTA Core Model® is well-established in the HTA community. Some recommendations of corresponding guidance documents leave room for alternative methodological choices. Considering the new HTA regulation (HTAR), we aimed to identify needs for concretization (NCs) in EUnetHTA guidance and provide indicative methodological options.

We carried out a qualitative document analysis and structured group discussion. Twenty-two EUnetHTA documents were screened using transparent criteria. Identified NCs were classified into topics according to the PRISMA statement and presented to Austrian HTA practitioners (n = 11) during a structured group discussion. Participants rated NC’s importance. To identify potential solutions, selected key handbooks for generic (Cochrane) and HTA-specific (IQWIG/NICE) evidence synthesis were systematically reviewed and matching content was charted against the NCs.

Thirty-two topics with varying numbers of NCs were identified, twenty-six during the screening process, and six from the group discussion. Most of the topics related to evidence synthesis methods (nine topics), evidence eligibility criteria (nine topics), risk of bias (three topics), and certainty assessment (three topics). Other topics related to information sources, search strategy, data collection process, data items, effect measures, and reporting bias. One or more methodological approaches and recommendations could be identified for each identified topic from the included methodological handbooks.

Our analysis identified a need for concretization in some EUnetHTA guidelines. The structured overview of methodological options may support HTA doers in adapting and applying the guidelines to the national and local practical context.

The aim of this study is to propose and validate a value assessment framework for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) for rare diseases drugs in Brazil.

A scoping review was performed to identify criteria used by HTA agencies in countries with public healthcare systems when evaluating orphan drugs. Based on the findings, a criteria framework for rare disease drugs was proposed for Brazil. Content validity was conducted over three rounds using Delphi technique and content validity ratio (CVR) approach was employed to evaluate the ratings from the eighteen stakeholders (experts and patients).

Twenty-nine HTA criteria for rare disease drugs were identified to compose the Brazilian framework. After three Delphi rounds, the final value framework comprised fifteen criteria categorized into four domains: disease-related factors, treatment-related factors, social and political factors, and economic factors. Among the most well-rated criteria by the CVR, considering the relevance attribute, were “relevance of outcomes for a rare disease,” “impact on patient’s quality of life,” “price negotiation,” and “adjusted cost-effectiveness threshold.” On the other hand, “budget impact threshold,” “innovative nature of treatment,” and “willingness to accept greater uncertainty in clinical evidence” received negative evaluations and were excluded from the final framework.

A value assessment framework validated by key stakeholders of rare diseases in Brazil could contribute to improve HTA transparency, decision making, and efficiency of the healthcare system, and inspire the development of a local guidance for rare-disease HTA.

There are wide variations in the practices of patient involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) in Europe. The field is lacking a consensus on good practices, leading to divergent processes, methods, and evaluation of patient involvement. To identify potential good practice approaches and current gaps, a structured online survey was conducted among HTA stakeholders, including HTA practitioners, patient stakeholders, industry representatives, and others who had experienced patient involvement in HTA.

The questionnaire was co-created by HTA experts, patient stakeholders, and industry representatives and disseminated between 29 April and 14 September 2022.

Responses (n = 168) were submitted from thirty-two European countries by HTA practitioners (n = 33), patient stakeholders (n = 75), industry stakeholders (n = 42), providers (n = 5), academics (n = 7), and others (n = 6). The responses indicated that “allowing access to treatments that have demonstrated value”is the principle rationale for conducting HTA. In terms of the importance of patient involvement, there was consensus across stakeholder groups that “patients have insights and information [that] no other stakeholder has” and that patient involvement is important “to inform HTA which evidence is most patient-relevant”. Shortcomings were identified in the lack of systematic and transparent processes, an unsatisfactory level of information and guidance, and minimal communication and collaboration.

The diverse stakeholders who responded highlighted the need for improving specific aspects of patient involvement practices, including better guidance and information, a more consistent flow of communication between the HTA body and participating patient stakeholders, and the need to develop and implement a consensus on good practices.