scholarly journals P36– Is a literature search in the Cochrane Library enough when preparing health technology assessment reports or clinical guidelines with focus on treatment outcome?

2010 ◽  
Vol 143 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 97-97
Author(s):  
Leena M. Lodenius
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
Assessment Reports

DRUG DISINVESTMENT FRAMEWORKS: COMPONENTS, CHALLENGES, AND SOLUTIONS

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Alison Maloney ◽  
Lisa Schwartz ◽  
Daria O'Reilly ◽  
Mitchel Levine
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Web Sites ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Value Assessment

Objectives:Value assessments of marketed drug technologies have been developed through disinvestment frameworks. Components of these frameworks are varied and implementation challenges are prevalent. The objective of this systematic literature review was to describe disinvestment framework process components for drugs and to report on framework components, challenges, and solutions.Methods:A systematic literature search was conducted using the terms: reassessment, reallocation, reinvestment, disinvestment, delist, decommission or obsolescence in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NLM PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL from January 1, 2000, until November 14, 2015. Additional citations were identified through a gray literature search of Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) member Web sites and from bibliographies of full-text reviewed manuscripts.Results:Sixty-three articles underwent full text review and forty were included in the qualitative analysis. Framework components including disinvestment terms and definitions, identification and prioritization criteria and methods, assessment processes, stakeholders and dissemination strategies, challenges, and solutions were compiled. This review finds that stakeholders lack the political, administrative, and clinical will to support disinvestment and that there is not one disinvestment framework that is considered best practice.Conclusions:Drug technology disinvestment components and processes vary and challenges are numerous. Future research should focus on lessening value assessment challenges. This could include adopting more neutral framework terminology, setting fixed reassessment timelines, conducting therapeutic reviews, and modifying current qualitative decision-making assessment frameworks.

scholarly journals Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment

2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (02) ◽  
pp. 133-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amber Watt ◽  
Alun Cameron ◽  
Lana Sturm ◽  
Timothy Lathlean ◽  
Wendy Babidge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Survey Tool ◽  
Program Evaluations ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Objectives:This review assessed current practice in the preparation of rapid reviews by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations, both internationally and in the Australian context, and evaluated the available peer-reviewed literature pertaining to the methodology used in the preparation of these reviews.Methods:A survey tool was developed and distributed to a total of fifty International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) members and other selected HTA organizations. Data on a broad range of themes related to the conduct of rapid reviews were collated, discussed narratively, and subjected to simple statistical analysis where appropriate. Systematic searches of the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Australian Medical Index were undertaken in March 2007 to identify literature pertaining to rapid review methodology. Comparative studies, guidelines, program evaluations, methods studies, commentaries, and surveys were considered for inclusion.Results:Twenty-three surveys were returned (46 percent), with eighteen agencies reporting on thirty-six rapid review products. Axiomatic trends were identified, but there was little cohesion between organizations regarding the contents, methods, and definition of a rapid review. The twelve studies identified by the systematic literature search did not specifically address the methodology underpinning rapid review; rather, many highlighted the complexity of the area. Authors suggested restricted research questions and truncated search strategies as methods to limit the time taken to complete a review.Conclusions:Rather than developing a formalized methodology by which to conduct rapid reviews, agencies should work toward increasing the transparency of the methods used for each review. It is perhaps the appropriate use, not the appropriate methodology, of a rapid review that requires future consideration.

scholarly journals Development of a checklist to guide equity considerations in health technology assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Benkhalti ◽  
Manuel Espinoza ◽  
Richard Cookson ◽  
Vivian Welch ◽  
Peter Tugwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Translation ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Health Inequities ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Pilot Test

Abstract Objectives Health technology assessment (HTA) can impact health inequities by informing healthcare priority-setting decisions. This paper presents a novel checklist to guide HTA practitioners looking to include equity considerations in their work: the equity checklist for HTA (ECHTA). The list is pragmatically organized according to the generic HTA phases and can be consulted at each step. Methods A first set of items was based on the framework for equity in HTA developed by Culyer and Bombard. After rewording and reorganizing according to five HTA phases, they were complemented by elements emerging from a literature search. Consultations with method experts, decision makers, and stakeholders further refined the items. Further feedback was sought during a presentation of the tool at an international HTA conference. Lastly, the checklist was piloted through all five stages of an HTA. Results ECHTA proposes elements to be considered at each one of the five HTA phases: Scoping, Evaluation, Recommendations and Conclusions, Knowledge Translation and Implementation, and Reassessment. More than a simple checklist, the tool provides details and examples that guide the evaluators through an analysis in each phase. A pilot test is also presented, which demonstrates the ECHTA's usability and added value. Conclusions ECHTA provides guidance for HTA evaluators wishing to ensure that their conclusions do not contribute to inequalities in health. Several points to build upon the current checklist will be addressed by a working group of experts, and further feedback is welcome from evaluators who have used the tool.

scholarly journals Developing a quality management system for the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA): toward European HTA collaboration

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Luhnen ◽  
Sari Susanna Ormstad ◽  
Anne Willemsen ◽  
Chaienna Schreuder-Morel ◽  
Catharina Helmink ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Management ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Management System ◽  
Quality Management System ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
European Network ◽  
Joint Work ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
Assessment Reports

Abstract Objectives The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) was established in 2006 and comprises over eighty organizations from thirty European countries. In its fifth project phase (Joint Action 3), EUnetHTA set up a quality management system (QMS) to improve the efficiency and standardization of joint work. This article presents EUnetHTA's new QMS and outlines experiences and challenges during its implementation. Methods Several working groups defined processes and methods to support assessment teams in creating high-quality assessment reports. Existing guidelines, templates, and tools were refined and missing parts were newly created and integrated into the new QMS framework. EUnetHTA has contributed to Health Technology Assessment (HTA) capacity building through training and knowledge sharing. Continuous evaluation helped to identify gaps and shortcomings in processes and structures. Results Based on a common quality management concept and defined development and revision procedures, twenty-seven partner organizations jointly developed and maintained around forty standard operating procedures and other components of the QMS. All outputs were incorporated into a web-based platform, the EUnetHTA Companion Guide, which was launched in May 2018. Concerted efforts of working groups were required to ensure consistency and avoid duplication. Conclusions With the establishment of a QMS for jointly produced assessment reports, EUnetHTA has taken a significant step toward a sustainable model for scientific and technical collaboration within European HTA. However, the definition of processes and methods meeting the numerous requirements of healthcare systems across Europe remains an ongoing and challenging task.

PP142 A Mental Health Hospital-based Health Technology Assessment In Quebec, Canada: Structure And Products

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 137-138
Author(s):  
Ionela Gheorghiu ◽  
Alain Lesage ◽  
Adam Mongodin ◽  
Marlène Galdin
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Decision Making Process

INTRODUCTION:Our Hospital-based Health Technology Assessment unit (HB-HTA) was founded in 2011 following the nomination of Louis-H. Lafontaine hospital as the Montreal University Mental Health Institute (IUSMM). From the beginning, the HB-HTA has been supporting and advising the Chief Executive Officer of IUSMM in the decision-making process concerning the implementation of new technologies and practices in mental health. Since 2015, the HB-HTA is part of the East of Montreal Regional Integrated Health and Social Services Centre (CIUSSS de l'Est-de-l’Île de Montréal), continuing to support decisions in mental health. Currently, the HB-HTA unit is nested in the Quality, Performance and Ethics department.METHODS:Formed by a coordinator, a scientific advisor and a manager, the HB-HTA team plans, organizes and sets up the evaluation activities. The unit benefits from the support of a Steering Committee which consists of representatives of clinical, administrative and research directions, as well as of health users and families. This committee determine the strategic orientation of the HB-HTA unit, prioritize the projects, approves the evaluation products and gives indications on the knowledge transfer process.RESULTS:To answer the decision questions, our HB-HTA unit employs two types of products: evaluation reports and informative notes. Based on an exhaustive literature search and consultations with stakeholders, the evaluation reports offer recommendations to support the decision-making process. The informative notes are rapid responses based on a partial literature search. The nature of this type of analysis does not allow the formulation of recommendations, however, a conclusion of the consulted literature is offered.CONCLUSIONS:Based on the work of our HB-HTA unit, some important decisions were made by the IUSMM. As an example, the systematic screening of psychiatric patients for drug and alcohol was not favored by our institution; rather than this, priority was given to staff training, in order to better identify and treat psychiatric patients with substance abuse comorbidity.

OP101 Do We Need To Extend Health Technology Assessment To Health Enhancement Assessment?

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 46-46
Author(s):  
Bjørn Hofmann
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Health And Wellbeing ◽  
Wide Range

INTRODUCTION:Several health technologies used for therapy can also be used for health enhancement. Drugs stimulating cognitive abilities are but one example. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) has not been developed for assessing enhancements. This raises the question of how HTA should address the blurred distinction between therapy and enhancement. Should we (i) carve out a distinction between therapy and enhancement and limit HTA to therapy, (ii) use HTA for both therapy and enhancement (with some modifications), or (iii) should we develop a separate health enhancement assessment (HEA)?METHODS:A literature search of the medical, philosophical, and bioethical literature was conducted for debates, arguments, and suggested solutions to the issue of therapy versus enhancement.RESULTS:The same improvement in health may be therapeutic in one patient, but an enhancement in another. Moreover, both therapy and enhancement share the same goal: increased health and wellbeing. A wide range of arguments try to establish a difference between therapy and enhancement. They refer to naturalness, rehabilitation, normality, species-typical functioning/potential, disease, sustainability, and responsibility. On closer scrutiny few of these arguments do the job in bolstering the therapy-enhancement distinction. We already use a wide range of means to extend human abilities. Moreover, the therapy-enhancement distinction raises a wide range of ethical issues that are relevant for the assessment of a number of emerging health technologies.CONCLUSIONS:Existing HTA methodology can address a wide range of non-therapeutic health enhancements. However, a series of broader issues related to the goal of health care and responsibility for altering human evolution may not be addressed within traditional HTA frameworks. Specific HEAs may therefore be helpful.

scholarly journals DOES HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AFFECT POLICY-MAKING AND CLINICAL PRACTICE IN SWEDEN?

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 265-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Måns Rosén ◽  
Sophie Werkö
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Time Series Data ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Series Data ◽  
Moderate Degree ◽  
The Impact

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze whether health technology assessment (HTA) reports published by SBU have influenced decisions, guidelines, clinical practice, or research priorities in Sweden.Methods: All twenty-six SBU reports between 2006 and 2010 were analyzed. For each project, we searched publications and documentation that reflected impact on decisions, guidelines, research or clinical practice. Written documentation, before–after surveys or register-based time series data were used when available. Based on a conceptual model and on the available evidence, we determined whether HTA reports had a high, moderate, or low impact.Results: HTA reports influenced comprehensive decisions to a high or moderate degree. In the case of fortifying flour with folic acid to a high degree. In ten cases, HTA reports were the primary source of clinical guidelines developed by the National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) or professional associations. In the cases of dyspepsia and gastro-esophageal reflux, as well as mild head injury, the HTA reports had a high impact on clinical practice. It was also obvious from this review that research had been initiated as a result of the knowledge gaps identified by HTA reports. In three cases, we had no adequate documentation, suggesting that the impact of the HTA report had been low.Conclusions: Many interrelated forces change practice, but the cases presented here indicate that HTA reports have had a high impact on clinical guidelines, as well as a moderate or high impact on comprehensive decisions, the initiation of research and changes in clinical practice.

PP184 Twenty Years of Health Technology Assessments on Robotic Assisted Surgery: A Summary

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (S1) ◽  
pp. 25-25
Author(s):  
Ben Forrest ◽  
Nikhil Sahai ◽  
Chao Song
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Da Vinci ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Surgical Indication ◽  
Annual Number ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Robotic Assisted Surgery ◽  
Nose And Throat

IntroductionDa Vinci robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has been evaluated by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations across the world. This study aimed to analyze the existing HTA reports over years, countries, and procedures.MethodsPublicly available health technology appraisal reports on RAS published from January 2000 to November 2020 were identified via a targeted literature search. The literature search was conducted in PubMed, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment database, and Google scholar. Reports related to the da Vinci RAS were included. Full texts of reports were used for the analysis.For the HTAs that recommended RAS, the directional conclusion was considered as positive. For HTA reports that discouraged the use of RAS, the directional conclusion was considered as negative. The rest were considered as neutral. The reports were analyzed by year, country, and procedure.ResultsWe identified 65 HTA reports comprising 128 procedure-level assessments of RAS by 42 HTA organizations in 21 countries over 20 years. The annual number of assessments increased over time. The countries that completed the most assessments were Sweden (14 reports, including 15 procedure-level assessments: 13% positive and 80% neutral) and Canada (11 reports, including 20 procedure-level assessments: 65% positive).The topics of the assessments covered 27 surgical indications in urology, gynecology, thoracic, general, and ear, nose, and throat. The conclusions of the HTAs varied by surgical indication. Prostatectomy (33 reports: 85% neutral or positive) was the most widely assessed surgical indication, followed by hysterectomy (16 reports: 81% neutral or positive), nephrectomy (15 reports: 73% neutral or positive), and rectal resection (10 reports: 100% neutral or positive).ConclusionsThe number and breadth of HTAs on RAS have grown at an increasing rate over the last 20 years. The directional conclusion of assessments varied by procedure and country. Further analysis is warranted to understand the factors contributing to HTA conclusions on RAS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document