Nora Ibargoyen-Roteta1, Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, José Asua. 1. Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment (Osteba), Department of Health and Consumer Affairs of the Basque Country, Olaguibel 38, 01004, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. n-ibargoyen@ej-gv.es
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop a guideline for health technology disinvestment. METHODS: The Nominal Group Technique was used to determine relevant aspects of disinvestment decision-making. Ideas reaching consensus and previous Spanish guidelines on the acquisition of new health technologies (GANT) and new genetic tests (GEN) structures were used to develop the domains and contents of GuNFT (Guideline for Not Funding Health Technologies). The draft was peer reviewed by local and international experts and their suggestions were incorporated to the first GuNFT version. RESULTS: Thirty-five ideas reached consensus. The most relevant ones referred to the reasons for disinvesting in a technology and the key aspects that would facilitate disinvestment acceptance. Considering both consensus ideas and GANT and GEN guidelines, the first GuNFT draft was elaborated. After the review process, section numbers and contents were changed. The resulting GuNFT guideline was finally divided into six domains related to: (1) general preliminary recommendations, (2) completing the application form, (3) checking and prioritising applications, (4) assessment, (5) final decision and (6) action plan design. A software was also developed to facilitate GuNFT implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Disinvestment should be a guided process. Accordingly, we present the first guideline for that purpose.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a guideline for health technology disinvestment. METHODS: The Nominal Group Technique was used to determine relevant aspects of disinvestment decision-making. Ideas reaching consensus and previous Spanish guidelines on the acquisition of new health technologies (GANT) and new genetic tests (GEN) structures were used to develop the domains and contents of GuNFT (Guideline for Not Funding Health Technologies). The draft was peer reviewed by local and international experts and their suggestions were incorporated to the first GuNFT version. RESULTS: Thirty-five ideas reached consensus. The most relevant ones referred to the reasons for disinvesting in a technology and the key aspects that would facilitate disinvestment acceptance. Considering both consensus ideas and GANT and GEN guidelines, the first GuNFT draft was elaborated. After the review process, section numbers and contents were changed. The resulting GuNFT guideline was finally divided into six domains related to: (1) general preliminary recommendations, (2) completing the application form, (3) checking and prioritising applications, (4) assessment, (5) final decision and (6) action plan design. A software was also developed to facilitate GuNFT implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Disinvestment should be a guided process. Accordingly, we present the first guideline for that purpose.
Authors: P Alison Paprica; Anthony J Culyer; Adam G Elshaug; Justin Peffer; Guillermo A Sandoval Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Claire Harris; Kelly Allen; Vanessa Brooke; Tim Dyer; Cara Waller; Richard King; Wayne Ramsey; Duncan Mortimer Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Daniel J Niven; Kelly J Mrklas; Jessalyn K Holodinsky; Sharon E Straus; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; Lianne P Jeffs; Henry Thomas Stelfox Journal: BMC Med Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Michael G Wilson; Moriah E Ellen; John N Lavis; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Kaelan A Moat; Joshua Shemer; Terry Sullivan; Sarah Garner; Ron Goeree; Roberto Grilli; Justin Peffer; Kevin Samra Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2014-12-11