Literature DB >> 20059783

Are Key Principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations?

Peter J Neumann, Michael F Drummond, Bengt Jönsson, Bryan R Luce, J Sanford Schwartz, Uwe Siebert, Sean D Sullivan.   

Abstract

Previously, our group-the International Working Group for HTA Advancement-proposed a set of fifteen Key Principles that could be applied to health technology assessment (HTA) programs in different jurisdictions and across a range of organizations and perspectives. In this commentary, we investigate the extent to which these principles are supported and used by fourteen selected HTA organizations worldwide. We find that some principles are broadly supported: examples include being explicit about HTA goals and scope; considering a wide range of evidence and outcomes; and being unbiased and transparent. Other principles receive less widespread support: examples are addressing issues of generalizability and transferability; being transparent on the link between HTA findings and decision-making processes; considering a full societal perspective; and monitoring the implementation of HTA findings. The analysis also suggests a lack of consensus in the field about some principles--for example, considering a societal perspective. Our study highlights differences in the uptake of key principles for HTA and indicates considerable room for improvement for HTA organizations to adopt principles identified to reflect good HTA practices. Most HTA organizations espouse certain general concepts of good practice--for example, assessments should be unbiased and transparent. However, principles that require more intensive follow-up--for example, monitoring the implementation of HTA findings--have received little support and execution.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20059783     DOI: 10.1017/S0266462309990833

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care        ISSN: 0266-4623            Impact factor:   2.188


  11 in total

1.  EBM, HTA, and CER: clearing the confusion.

Authors:  Bryan R Luce; Michael Drummond; Bengt Jönsson; Peter J Neumann; J Sanford Schwartz; Uwe Siebert; Sean D Sullivan
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 4.911

2.  Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept.

Authors:  James E Signorovitch; Eric Q Wu; Andrew P Yu; Charles M Gerrits; Evan Kantor; Yanjun Bao; Shiraz R Gupta; Parvez M Mulani
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Omalizumab for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma in children aged 6-11 years: a NICE single technology appraisal.

Authors:  Jane Burch; Susan Griffin; Claire McKenna; Simon Walker; James Paton; Kath Wright; Nerys Woolacott
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Evolution of health technology assessment: best practices of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review.

Authors:  Angela Rocchi; Isabelle Chabot; Judith Glennie
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2015-06-03

5.  Methods of international health technology assessment agencies for economic evaluations--a comparative analysis.

Authors:  Tim Mathes; Esther Jacobs; Jana-Carina Morfeld; Dawid Pieper
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-09-30       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 6.  Conflicts of interest and critiques of the use of systematic reviews in policymaking: an analysis of opinion articles.

Authors:  Susan R Forsyth; Donna H Odierna; David Krauth; Lisa A Bero
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2014-11-18

7.  Evaluating the quality and use of economic data in decisions about essential medicines.

Authors:  Corrina Moucheraud; Veronika J Wirtz; Michael R Reich
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 9.408

8.  Evaluating the effects of a risk-adapted screening program for familial colorectal cancer in individuals between 25 and 50 years of age: study protocol for the prospective population-based intervention study FARKOR.

Authors:  Sabine Hoffmann; Alexander Crispin; Doris Lindoerfer; Gaby Sroczynski; Uwe Siebert; Ulrich Mansmann; Farkor Consortium
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-05-05       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 9.  Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review.

Authors:  Bruna de Oliveira Ascef; Ana Carolina de Freitas Lopes; Patrícia Coelho de Soárez
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2020-08-26

10.  Health Technology Optimization Analysis: Conceptual Approach and Illustrative Application.

Authors:  Charles Yan; Yufei Zheng; Michael D Hill; Balraj Mann; Thomas Jeerakathil; Noreen Kamal; Shy Amlani; Anderson W Chuck
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2018-05-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.