scholarly journals Applying the results of Health Technology Assessment reports in developing countries, the pale face of coin

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 781-782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Ghassemi ◽  
Reza Dehnavieh
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Assessment Reports

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.

scholarly journals Implementing health technology assessment in Kuwait: a qualitative study of perceived barriers and facilitators

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 422-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Basshar Darawsheh ◽  
Evi Germeni
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Key Stakeholders

AbstractObjectivesThis study sought to explore main barriers and facilitators to implementing health technology assessment (HTA) in Kuwait from the perspective of key stakeholders.MethodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with ten key stakeholders: seven healthcare providers working at various departments of the Kuwaiti Ministry of Health (MOH), and three academics with substantial experience in teaching HTA or related fields. Interviews were conducted face-to-face, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach.ResultsParticipating stakeholders reported several factors that might act as a barrier to building HTA in Kuwait: minimal awareness of HTA, lack of institutional and human capacity, a fragmented healthcare system, poor communication between researchers and policy makers, the country's wealth, politics, as well as data quality, availability, and sharing. Institutionalizing HTA as a politically empowered body, enforcing its recommendation by law, and benefiting from neighboring countries' experiences were suggested as possible ways to move forward.ConclusionStudies exploring the unique challenges that high-income developing countries may face in implementing HTA are still scarce. The results of this study are consistent with evidence coming from other developing countries, while also suggesting that the abundance of financial resources in the country is a double-edged sword; it has the potential to facilitate the development of HTA capacity, but also hinders recognizing the need for it.

scholarly journals Database combinations to retrieve systematic reviews in Overviews of reviews: A methodological study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Käthe Goossen ◽  
Simone Hess ◽  
Carole Lunny ◽  
Dawid Pieper
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Inclusion Rate ◽  
Reference Checking ◽  
Assessment Reports

Abstract Background When conducting an Overviews of Reviews on health-related topics, it is unclear which combination of bibliographic databases authors should use for searching for SRs. Our goal was to determine which databases included the most systematic reviews and identify an optimal database combination for searching systematic reviews. Methods A set of 86 Overviews of Reviews with 1219 included systematic reviews was extracted from a previous study. Inclusion of the systematic reviews was assessed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, and TRIP. The mean inclusion rate (% of included systematic reviews) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with each other database and reference checking. Results Inclusion of systematic reviews was higher in MEDLINE than in any other single database (mean inclusion rate 89.7%; 95% confidence interval [89.0–90.3%]). Combined with reference checking, this value increased to 93.7% [93.2–94.2%]. The best combination of two databases plus reference checking consisted of MEDLINE and Epistemonikos (99.2% [99.0–99.3%]). Stratification by Health Technology Assessment reports (97.7% [96.5–98.9%]) vs. Cochrane Overviews (100.0%) vs. non-Cochrane Overviews (99.3% [99.1–99.4%]) showed that inclusion was only slightly lower for Health Technology Assessment reports. However, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and reference checking remained the best combination. Among the 10/1219 systematic reviews not identified by this combination, five were published as websites rather than journals, two were included in CINAHL and Embase, and one was included in the database ERIC. Conclusions MEDLINE and Epistemonikos, complemented by reference checking of included studies, is the best database combination to identify systematic reviews on health-related topics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document