OBJECTIVES: To assess the level of comprehensiveness of health technology assessment (HTA) practices around the globe and to formulate recommendations for enhancing legitimacy and fairness of related decision-making processes. METHODS: To identify best practices, we developed an evaluation framework consisting of 13 criteria on the basis of the INTEGRATE-HTA model (integrative perspective on assessing health technologies) and the Accountability for Reasonableness framework (deliberative appraisal process). We examined different HTA systems in middle-income countries (Argentina, Brazil, and Thailand) and high-income countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Scotland, and South Korea). For this purpose, desk research and structured interviews with relevant key stakeholders (N = 32) in the selected countries were conducted. RESULTS: HTA systems in Canada, England, and Scotland appear relatively well aligned with our framework, followed by Australia, Germany, and France. Argentina and South Korea are at an early stage, whereas Brazil and Thailand are at an intermediate level. Both desk research and interviews revealed that scoping is often not part of the HTA process. In contrast, providing evidence reports for assessment is well established. Indirect and unintended outcomes are increasingly considered, but there is room for improvement. Monitoring and evaluation of the HTA process is not well established across countries. Finally, adopting transparent and robust processes, including stakeholder consultation, takes time. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a framework for assessing the level of comprehensiveness of the HTA process in a country. On the basis of applying the framework, we formulate recommendations on how the HTA community can move toward a more integrated decision-making process using HTA.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the level of comprehensiveness of health technology assessment (HTA) practices around the globe and to formulate recommendations for enhancing legitimacy and fairness of related decision-making processes. METHODS: To identify best practices, we developed an evaluation framework consisting of 13 criteria on the basis of the INTEGRATE-HTA model (integrative perspective on assessing health technologies) and the Accountability for Reasonableness framework (deliberative appraisal process). We examined different HTA systems in middle-income countries (Argentina, Brazil, and Thailand) and high-income countries (Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Scotland, and South Korea). For this purpose, desk research and structured interviews with relevant key stakeholders (N = 32) in the selected countries were conducted. RESULTS: HTA systems in Canada, England, and Scotland appear relatively well aligned with our framework, followed by Australia, Germany, and France. Argentina and South Korea are at an early stage, whereas Brazil and Thailand are at an intermediate level. Both desk research and interviews revealed that scoping is often not part of the HTA process. In contrast, providing evidence reports for assessment is well established. Indirect and unintended outcomes are increasingly considered, but there is room for improvement. Monitoring and evaluation of the HTA process is not well established across countries. Finally, adopting transparent and robust processes, including stakeholder consultation, takes time. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a framework for assessing the level of comprehensiveness of the HTA process in a country. On the basis of applying the framework, we formulate recommendations on how the HTA community can move toward a more integrated decision-making process using HTA.
Authors: Wija Oortwijn; Don Husereau; Julia Abelson; Edwine Barasa; Diana Dana Bayani; Vania Canuto Santos; Anthony Culyer; Karen Facey; David Grainger; Katharina Kieslich; Daniel Ollendorf; Andrés Pichon-Riviere; Lars Sandman; Valentina Strammiello; Yot Teerawattananon Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Wija Oortwijn; Don Husereau; Julia Abelson; Edwine Barasa; Diana Dana Bayani; Vania Canuto Santos; Anthony Culyer; Karen Facey; David Grainger; Katharina Kieslich; Daniel Ollendorf; Andrés Pichon-Riviere; Lars Sandman; Valentina Strammiello; Yot Teerawattananon Journal: Value Health Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 5.101
Authors: Monika Wagner; Dima Samaha; Roman Casciano; Matthew Brougham; Payam Abrishami; Charles Petrie; Bernard Avouac; Lorenzo Mantovani; Antonio Sarría-Santamera; Paul Kind; Michael Schlander; Michele Tringali Journal: Int J Health Policy Manag Date: 2019-07-01
Authors: Julius C Mwita; Olayinka O Ogunleye; Adesola Olalekan; Aubrey C Kalungia; Amanj Kurdi; Zikria Saleem; Jacqueline Sneddon; Brian Godman Journal: Int J Gen Med Date: 2021-02-18
Authors: Julia Bidonde; Jose Francisco Meneses-Echavez; Brian Asare; Lumbwe Chola; Mohamed Gad; Lieke Fleur Heupink; Elizabeth Fleur Peacocke Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 4.615