Literature DB >> 30661627

Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA.

Finn Børlum Kristensen1, Don Husereau2, Mirjana Huić3, Michael Drummond4, Marc L Berger5, Kenneth Bond6, Federico Augustovski7, Andrew Booth8, John F P Bridges9, Jeremy Grimshaw10, Maarten J IJzerman11, Egon Jonsson12, Daniel A Ollendorf13, Alric Rüther14, Uwe Siebert15, Jitendar Sharma16, Allan Wailoo17.   

Abstract

The systematic use of evidence to inform healthcare decisions, particularly health technology assessment (HTA), has gained increased recognition. HTA has become a standard policy tool for informing decision makers who must manage the entry and use of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other technologies (including complex interventions) within health systems, for example, through reimbursement and pricing. Despite increasing attention to HTA activities, there has been no attempt to comprehensively synthesize good practices or emerging good practices to support population-based decision-making in recent years. After the identification of some good practices through the release of the ISPOR Guidelines Index in 2013, the ISPOR HTA Council identified a need to more thoroughly review existing guidance. The purpose of this effort was to create a basis for capacity building, education, and improved consistency in approaches to HTA-informed decision-making. Our findings suggest that although many good practices have been developed in areas of assessment and some other key aspects of defining HTA processes, there are also many areas where good practices are lacking. This includes good practices in defining the organizational aspects of HTA, the use of deliberative processes, and measuring the impact of HTA. The extent to which these good practices are used and applied by HTA bodies is beyond the scope of this report, but may be of interest to future researchers.
Copyright © 2019 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30661627     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  14 in total

1.  Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.

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

2.  Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.

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

3.  Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies: A Reflection on Legitimacy, Values and Patient and Public Involvement Comment on "Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe".

Authors:  Mireille Goetghebeur; Marjo Cellier
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2021-03-14

4.  Advanced therapy medicinal products: value judgement and ethical evaluation in health technology assessment.

Authors:  Elisabete Gonçalves
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2020-01-09

5.  Health technology assessment-informed pricing negotiation in China: higher negotiated price for more effective targeted anticancer medicines?

Authors:  Cong Huang; Carolina Oi Lam Ung; Haishaerjiang Wushouer; Lin Bai; Tao Huang; Xinyi Li; Xiaodong Guan; Luwen Shi
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2022-01-03

Review 6.  Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations.

Authors:  Matthew Franklin; James Lomas; Gerry Richardson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 7.  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

8.  Implementation of Health Technology Assessment in the Middle East and North Africa: Comparison Between the Current and Preferred Status.

Authors:  Ahmad Fasseeh; Rita Karam; Mouna Jameleddine; Mohsen George; Finn Børlum Kristensen; Abeer A Al-Rabayah; Abdulaziz H Alsaggabi; Maha El Rabbat; Maryam S Alowayesh; Julia Chamova; Adham Ismail; Sherif Abaza; Zoltán Kaló
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 5.810

9.  Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe.

Authors:  Wija Oortwijn; Maarten Jansen; Rob Baltussen
Journal:  Int J Health Policy Manag       Date:  2020-01-01

10.  How can we evaluate the potential of innovative vaccine products and technologies in resource constrained settings? A total systems effectiveness (TSE) approach to decision-making.

Authors:  Siobhan Botwright; Anna-Lea Kahn; Raymond Hutubessy; Patrick Lydon; Joseph Biey; Abdoul Karim Sidibe; Ibrahima Diarra; Mardiati Nadjib; Auliya A Suwantika; Ery Setiawan; Rachel Archer; Debra Kristensen; Marion Menozzi-Arnaud; Ado Mpia Bwaka; Jason M Mwenda; Birgitte K Giersing
Journal:  Vaccine X       Date:  2020-10-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.