Julie Polisena1, Rossana Castaldo2, Oriana Ciani3, Carlo Federici4, Simone Borsci5, Matteo Ritrovato6, Daniel Clark7, Leandro Pecchia8. 1. CADTH,Ottawajuliep@cadth.ca. 2. School of Engineering,University of Warwick. 3. Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CeRGAS),SDA Bocconi University;Evidence Synthesis and Modeling for Health Improvement,University of Exeter Medical School. 4. School of Engineering,University of Warwick;Centre for Research on Health and Social Care Management (CeRGAS),SDA Bocconi University. 5. Department of Cognitive Psychology and Ergonomics,University of Twente. 6. HTA Unit,Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital. 7. Clinical Engineering,Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. 8. School of Engineering,University of Warwick; Health Technology Assessment Division,International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineering.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Current health technology assessment (HTA) methods guidelines for medical devices may benefit from contributions by biomedical and clinical engineers. Our study aims to: (i) review and identify gaps in the current HTA guidelines on medical devices, (ii) propose recommendations to optimize the impact of HTA for medical devices, and (iii) reach a consensus among biomedical engineers on these recommendations. METHODS: A gray literature search of HTA agency Web sites for assessment methods guidelines on devices was conducted. The International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineers (IFMBE) then convened a structured focus group, with experts from different fields, to identify potential gaps in the current HTA guidelines, and to develop recommendations to fill these perceived gaps. The thirty recommendations generated from the focus group were circulated in a Delphi survey to eighty-five biomedical and clinical engineers. RESULTS: Thirty-two panelists, from seventeen countries, participated in the Delphi survey. The responses showed a strong agreement on twenty-seven of thirty recommendations. Some uncertainties remain about the methods to accurately assess the effectiveness and safety, and interoperability of a medical device with other devices or within the clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS: As medical devices differ from drug therapies, current HTA methods may not accurately reflect the conclusions of their assessment. Recommendations informed by the focus group discussions and Delphi survey responses aimed to address the perceived gaps, and to provide a more integrated approach in medical device assessments in combining engineering with other perspectives, such as clinical, economic, patient, human factors, ethical, and environmental.
OBJECTIVES: Current health technology assessment (HTA) methods guidelines for medical devices may benefit from contributions by biomedical and clinical engineers. Our study aims to: (i) review and identify gaps in the current HTA guidelines on medical devices, (ii) propose recommendations to optimize the impact of HTA for medical devices, and (iii) reach a consensus among biomedical engineers on these recommendations. METHODS: A gray literature search of HTA agency Web sites for assessment methods guidelines on devices was conducted. The International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineers (IFMBE) then convened a structured focus group, with experts from different fields, to identify potential gaps in the current HTA guidelines, and to develop recommendations to fill these perceived gaps. The thirty recommendations generated from the focus group were circulated in a Delphi survey to eighty-five biomedical and clinical engineers. RESULTS: Thirty-two panelists, from seventeen countries, participated in the Delphi survey. The responses showed a strong agreement on twenty-seven of thirty recommendations. Some uncertainties remain about the methods to accurately assess the effectiveness and safety, and interoperability of a medical device with other devices or within the clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS: As medical devices differ from drug therapies, current HTA methods may not accurately reflect the conclusions of their assessment. Recommendations informed by the focus group discussions and Delphi survey responses aimed to address the perceived gaps, and to provide a more integrated approach in medical device assessments in combining engineering with other perspectives, such as clinical, economic, patient, human factors, ethical, and environmental.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical and biomedical engineering; Guidelines; Health technology assessment; Medical device
Authors: Maximilian Blüher; Sita J Saunders; Virginie Mittard; Rafael Torrejon Torres; Jason A Davis; Rhodri Saunders Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2019-11-29