Kristina Kõrge1, Nadine Berndt2, Juergen Hohmann3, Florence Romano4, Mickael Hiligsmann5. 1. Faculty of Health,Medicine and Life Sciences,Maastricht University. 2. Cellule d'expertise médicale,Inspection générale de la sécurité sociale,Luxembourgnadine.berndt@ms.etat.lu. 3. European Commission,DEVCO/B3,Migration,Employment and Inequalities,Brussels. 4. Cellule d'expertise médicale,Inspection générale de la sécurité sociale,Luxembourg. 5. Department of Health Services Research,School for Public Health and Primary Care,Maastricht University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The health technology assessment (HTA) Core Model® is a tool for defining and standardizing the elements of HTA analyses within several domains for producing structured reports. This study explored the parallels between the Core Model and a national HTA report. Experiences from various European HTA agencies were also investigated to determine the Core Model's adaptability to national reports. METHODS: A comparison between a national report on Genetic Counseling, produced by the Cellule d'expertise médicale Luxembourg, and the Core Model was performed to identify parallels in terms of relevant and comparable assessment elements (AEs). Semi-structured interviews with five representatives from European HTA agencies were performed to assess their user experiences with the Core Model. RESULTS: The comparative study revealed that 50 percent of the total number (n = 144) of AEs in the Core Model were relevant for the national report. Of these 144 AEs from the Core Model, 34 (24 percent) were covered in the national report. Some AEs were covered only partly. The interviewees emphasized flexibility in using the Core Model and stated that the most important aspects to be evaluated include characteristics of the disease and technology, clinical effectiveness, economic aspects, and safety. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, the national report covered an acceptable number of AEs of the Core Model. These results need to be interpreted with caution because only one comparison was performed. The Core Model can be used in a flexible manner, applying only those elements that are relevant from the perspective of the technology assessment and specific country context.
OBJECTIVES: The health technology assessment (HTA) Core Model® is a tool for defining and standardizing the elements of HTA analyses within several domains for producing structured reports. This study explored the parallels between the Core Model and a national HTA report. Experiences from various European HTA agencies were also investigated to determine the Core Model's adaptability to national reports. METHODS: A comparison between a national report on Genetic Counseling, produced by the Cellule d'expertise médicale Luxembourg, and the Core Model was performed to identify parallels in terms of relevant and comparable assessment elements (AEs). Semi-structured interviews with five representatives from European HTA agencies were performed to assess their user experiences with the Core Model. RESULTS: The comparative study revealed that 50 percent of the total number (n = 144) of AEs in the Core Model were relevant for the national report. Of these 144 AEs from the Core Model, 34 (24 percent) were covered in the national report. Some AEs were covered only partly. The interviewees emphasized flexibility in using the Core Model and stated that the most important aspects to be evaluated include characteristics of the disease and technology, clinical effectiveness, economic aspects, and safety. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, the national report covered an acceptable number of AEs of the Core Model. These results need to be interpreted with caution because only one comparison was performed. The Core Model can be used in a flexible manner, applying only those elements that are relevant from the perspective of the technology assessment and specific country context.
Entities:
Keywords:
Case reports; National health policy; Qualitative research; Technology assessment; Validation studies
Authors: Agnes Kisser; Joschua Knieriemen; Annette Fasan; Karolin Eberle; Sara Hogger; Sebastian Werner; Tina Taube; Andrej Rasch Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2021-11-12