SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
The Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA) was recently evaluated. We summarize the evaluation process, report, and 17 recommendations for enhancing CCOHTA's effectiveness. This paper may be useful for evaluators of agencies for technology assessment.
Increasingly, health technology assessment (HTA) is used to aid decisions on the reimbursement of pharmaceuticals or recommendations for their use. The pharmaceutical industry seeks to work in partnership with HTA agencies; however, this presents a number of challenges. Clinical trials will need to include appropriate measures that capture economic and patient benefits as well as relevant clinical endpoints, and the industry will want to seek international harmonization of the many guidelines for economic evaluation. The problem of demonstrating cost-effectiveness of a product before it is available for use must be addressed, possibly by conditional reimbursement to allow collection of real world evidence. It is also important that reimbursement decision makers minimize bias, play fair, and adhere to the written rules they issue. If the industry fairly demonstrates the value of a product using the best available evidence, HTA agencies should be transparent in the rationale for their recommendations.
The Confidence Profile Method is a Bayesian method for adjusting and combining pieces of evidence to estimate parameters, such as the effect of health technologies on health outcomes. The information in each piece of evidence is captured in a likelihood function that gives the likelihood of the observed results of the evidence as a function of possible values of the parameter. A posterior distribution is calculated from Bayes formula as the product of the likelihood function and a prior distribution. Multiple pieces of evidence are incorporated by successive applications of Bayes' formula. Pieces of evidence are adjusted for biases to internal or external validity by modeling the biases and deriving "adjusted" likelihood functions that incorporate the models. Likelihood functions have been derived for one-, two- and multi-arm prospective studies; 2 x 2, 2 x n and matched case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. Biases that can be incorporated in likelihood functions include crossover in controlled trials, error in measurement outcomes, patient selection biases, differences in technologies, and differences in length of follow-up. Effect measures include differences of rates, ratios of rates, and odds ratios. The elements of the method are illustrated with an analysis of the effect of a thrombolytic agent on the difference in probability of 1-year survival after a heart attack.
Biomedical databases are an important source of information for health technology assessment. However, there is considerable variation in the costs of accessing commercial databases. We sought to measure the quality, amount of overlap, and costs of information retrieved from two of the main database sources--MEDLINE and EMBASE. Librarians at two health technology assessment agencies ran a total of eight literature searches on various medical technologies, using both databases. All search results were independently reviewed by two researchers. The researchers were asked to identify relevant references and to rank each of these according to a level of evidence scale. The results were tabulated to show the number of references identified by each database, the number of relevant references ranked by level of evidence, and the number of these references that were unique to one or the other database. The cost of retrieving references from each source was also calculated. Each database contained relevant references not available in the other. Because of the longer time lag for indexing in MEDLINE, many of the references that originally appeared to be unique to EMBASE were subsequently available in MEDLINE as well. Since our study was conducted, MEDLINE has been made available worldwide, free of charge, via the Internet. Hence, the cost difference between the databases is now even greater. However, notwithstanding the costs, it appears that literature searches that rely on only one or the other database will inevitably miss pertinent information.
Like many other countries, Australia has placed increasing emphasis on the assessment of medical technologies over the past decade. This emphasis is shaped in part by financial constraints, and in part by the organization of the health care system and its dominance by publicly-funded hospitals. Two committees, the Superspecialty Services Subcommittee of the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council, and the National Health Technology Advisory Panel have been particularly influential in developing guidelines for technology assessment. These guidelines emphasize not only the accumulation of primary data during the implementation of a new technology, but also a follow-up process for on-going evaluation of the contributions of a particular technology to clinical care. Presently the two committees are being merged into one agency named the Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee. This agency will be given enhanced authority to guide the diffusion and utilization of new technologies into the delivery process for health care.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The basis of an early warning system for new and emerging health technologies is information, and in particular, information that has been selectively extracted from the huge quantity of data in the fields of medicine, science, and biobusiness. The information will be useful only if presented in a format suitable to the needs of health care decision makers and produced at the time most likely to influence the introduction or diffusion of new technologies. In 1997 the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA) began a one-year pilot project to identify and provide information on developments in medical technologies that may have a significant impact on health care in Canada. We began by examining the information available to us through the Internet, based on the assumption that electronic sources can offer more timely access to a greater range of information, often with little or no cost involved. It was important to identify the sites that offered the most relevant information in the least amount of time.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop a guide to identifying and managing risks for health technology assessment (HTA) programs and to obtain opinions on this topic from HTA agencies. METHODS: The risks and approaches to their management were compiled, drawing on experiences from HTA programs and the risk assessment literature. Opinion on this classification was obtained from members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). RESULTS: Twenty-one risks for HTA programs were identified under the categories Formulation of HTA Questions, Preparation of the HTA Product, Dissemination, and Contracting. For each risk area, potential consequences and suggested management approaches were outlined. Responses from ten HTA programs indicated substantial agreement regarding the risks that had been identified and on the importance of risk management for their own operations. CONCLUSIONS: Prudent management of HTA programs should take into account the risks related to external factors.
OBJECTIVES: A review of the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research's (AHFMR) 6-month Health Technology Skills Development Program was undertaken within an international context with the purpose of describing and assessing the current program, further formalizing the program based on identified opportunities for improvement, and enhancing collaborative linkages with other agencies. The objectives of the review were to (i) compare the AHFMR program with similar programs in other health technology assessment (HTA) agencies internationally; (ii) assess the value of the program; (iii) identify program strengths and opportunities for improvement; and (iv) review, critique, and recommend enhancements to the program model and role description. METHODS: The review involved a qualitative study design that included a survey of the Skills Development Program participants' experience and perceptions; semistructured interviews with program stakeholders, and a written survey of HTA agencies/programs in other Canadian and international jurisdictions. CONCLUSIONS: The review concluded that the program was successful and valued by participants, the Foundation, and stakeholders in the policy and research communities. Findings suggest participant products have a potential for broad influence, including impact on funding decisions related to technology diffusion, influence through publications and presentations, and knowledge transfer in the participants' disciplines and employment settings. The main opportunity for enhancement was to differentiate the program into two streams according to different needs of participants, specifically between those who desire to be HTA producers and/or make HTA their careers, and those who desire to apply HTA in their employment capacity as policy or clinical decision-makers.
Methodology for evaluation of impact of health technology assessments (HTAs) is outlined and its use illustrated by applying it to 21 HTAs produced by CETS. Impact on policies and technology diffusion was identified in documents, through interviews, questionnaires, and use of data banks. There was evidence that all but three reports influenced policy and that cost-minimization studies caused savings of between $16 million and $27 million annually. Precise estimates of impact will seldom be possible, but systematic documentation of effects is feasible.
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop an economic prioritization model to assist those involved in the selection and prioritization of health technology assessment topics and commissioning of HTA projects. METHODS: The model used decision analytic techniques to estimate the expected costs and benefits of the health care interventions that were the focus of the HTA question(s) considered by the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme in England. Initial estimation of the value for money of HTA was conducted for several topics considered in 1997 and 1998. RESULTS: The results indicate that, using information routinely available in the literature and from the vignettes, it was not possible to estimate the absolute value of HTA with any certainty for this stage of the prioritization process. Overall, the results were uncertain for 65% of the HTA questions or topics analyzed. The relative costs of the interventions or technologies compared to existing costs of care and likely levels of utilization were critical factors in most of the analyses. The probability that the technology was effective with the HTA and the impact of the HTA on utilization rates were also key determinants of expected costs and benefits. CONCLUSIONS: The main conclusion was that it is feasible to conduct ex ante assessments of the value for money of HTA for specific topics. However, substantial work is required to ensure that the methods used are valid, reliable, consistent, and an efficient use of valuable research time.
To rationalize and restrict health care spending, policy, makers in many jurisdictions have withdrawn insurance or funding for selected health care technologies. Numerous analytic frameworks and applied exercises have emerged to guide decisions about "which" services to cut. But in their focus on choice-making processes, these efforts have paid little attention to the problem of defining and dividing the set of technologies to choose among. If technology assessment refers to methods for weighing services for their relative value, the term technology assembly might be used to refer to methods for framing the technological trade-offs to enroll in such contests. This article examines technology assemblies found in several types of theoretical and applied rationing exercises (including Oregon's Medicaid rationing process, economic evaluation literature, citizen "values" surveys, and Canadian provincial deinsurance policies). Based on this review, some key conceptual conventions and problems in technology assembly can be identified. The boundaries between health technologies are fuzzy, interlocked, layered, and continuously moving. Consequently, the defining features of technological trade-offs are inevitably socially constructed and negotiated. Trade-offs can be arranged along numerous dimensions, and the divisions typically correspond to broader political, administrative, and ethical dilemmas in health policy. Examples include equity among demographic classes, concepts of need, legitimacy of therapeutic goals, and so forth. Insights into the process of constructing technological trade-offs may help policy makers better question what technologies they are looking at and why, before moving on to the task of determining which ones to cover.
INTRODUCTION: Despite the growing recognition of the potential applications of cost-effectiveness assessments, a criterion to establish what is an efficient health technology does not exist in Spain. The objective of this work is to describe the limits and the criteria used in Spain to recommend the adoption of health interventions. METHOD: A review of the economic evaluations of health technologies published in Spain from 1990 to 2001 was conducted. Complete economic assessments in which the cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as cost per life-year gained (LYG), cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) or cost per saved live were selected. Those interventions in which the authors established recommendations (adoption or rejection) and the criteria used were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty (20%) of the 100 complete economic evaluations fulfilled the selection criteria. In16 studies, the results were expressed as cost per LYG, in 6 studies as cost per QALY and in 1 as cost per saved live. A total of 82 health interventions were assessed and some kind of recommendation was established in 44 of them. All technologies with a cost-effectiveness ratio lower than 30,000 euros (5 million pesetas) per LYG were recommended for adoption by the authors. Up to that limit there was no a clear tendency. CONCLUSIONS: Although the results must be interpreted with much precaution, given the limitations of the study, the limits of cost-effectiveness presented in this work could be a first reference to which would be an efficient health intervention in Spain.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The ability of psychological treatment services to deliver effective and accessible mental healthcare, as demanded by the National Service Framework for mental health, is compromised by the traditional configuration of psychological therapy services, powerful gatekeeping by these services and the difficulties which exist in engaging primary care in mental healthcare. Although a number of service models have been suggested, most address access from the perspective of secondary care service providers. In particular, self-help, a powerful ideology and a clinically effective health technology, is given insufficient prominence in psychological therapy services. Self-help is often only considered for mild problems or as an adjunct to therapy, and it is assumed that mental health professionals with traditional therapeutic skills are needed to support self-help. Following a review of access and self-help in psychological therapies, the present authors propose criteria against which services could be designed in order to fully utilise self-help as a powerful health technology in psychological therapies. Accompanying these criteria is a research framework drawn from recent work on access and illness self-management that can be used to evaluate the performance of services attempting to improve access to psychological therapies.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to analyze statistically the possible determinants and implications of including or not including recommendations in health technology assessments (HTAs). METHODS: A sample of 433 HTAs published by eleven leading institutions or agencies in nine countries was reviewed and analyzed statistically by multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: The extent of policy and research recommendations in HTAs varies greatly from country to country. The content and scope of HTAs have some impact on recommendations. Extensive assessment of economic and organizational aspects increases the likelihood of including policy recommendations. Extensive assessment of technological and patient aspects increases the likelihood of including research recommendations, whereas extensive focus on economic aspects is negatively related to research recommendations. The most striking result is that the use of external partners for assessment increases the likelihood of including research recommendations in HTAs but not policy recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: HTA commissioners, agencies, institutions, and funding authorities need to be aware of the consequences of the choices they make in advance of assessing health technologies. Outsourcing HTA to external partners suggests a greater likelihood of being told that "more research is needed." The scope and content of HTAs has an impact on the type of recommendations, and country-specific preferences are strong predictors of recommendations in HTAs.
Are evidence-based approaches ready for health technology?
The manner in which clinical and cost-effectiveness data are used to inform decisions about the funding and availability of drugs, therapies and medical devices is inherently politicised within collectively financed systems of health care. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) was established by the British government in 1999 to reach evidence-based decisions on whether selected health technologies should be made available by the National Health Service in England and Wales. But NICE is also required to involve a broad range of interested parties in the decision-making process, provide detailed rationales for its rulings and defend appeals from aggrieved parties. Debates about the emergence of "deliberative" forms of policy governance--based upon participation by a broad range of stakeholders rather than reliance on scientific, bureaucratic or political expertise alone--are thus particularly apposite. This article draws on a study of decision-making within NICE by focusing upon the tenor and orientation of deliberation about the adoption of health technologies. Does such deliberation take place upon a level playing field for different interests? Or do implicit parameters and understandings in the deliberative process tend to privilege some interests by structuring debate and attendant outcomes? Findings suggest that deliberative assumptions and parameters pertaining to fluid and contestable ideas of transparent reasoning and domain competence both reflect and shape relationships of influence and marginality among participants. Broader analytical implications centre on a distinction between "deliberative democracy" and "democratic deliberation". The extent to which this distinction is acknowledged and addressed in policy and practise will have marked implications for the substantive nature of attempts to broaden involvement in decision-making within public sector bodies such as NICE.