Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:52:21.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the Impact of Health Technology Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Robert Jacob  and
Maurice Mcgregor
Robert Jacob
Affiliation:
Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services
Maurice Mcgregor
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Methodology for evaluation of impact of health technology assessments (HTAs) is outlined and its use illustrated by applying it to 21 HTAs produced by CETS. Impact on policies and technology diffusion was identified in documents, through interviews, questionnaires, and use of data banks. There was evidence that all but three reports influenced policy and that cost-minimization studies caused savings of between $16 million and $27 million annually. Precise estimates of impact will seldom be possible, but systematic documentation of effects is feasible.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , Winter 1997 , pp. 68 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Alban, A.The role of economic appraisal in Denmark. Social Science and Medicine, 1994, 38, 1647–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Archer, C., Levy, A. R., & McGregor, M.Value of routine preoperative chest x-rays: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia, 1993, 40, 1022–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Baris, E., & McGregor, M.The reuse of hemodialyzers: An assessment of safety and potential savings. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1993, 148, 175–83.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Caro, J. J., Trindade, E., & McGregor, M.The risks of death and severe nonfatal reactions with high vs low-osmolar contrast media: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1991, 156, 825–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Caro, J. J., Trindade, E., & McGregor, M.The cost-effectiveness of replacing highosmolality with low-osmalality contrast media. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1992, 159, 869–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec (CETS). Domiciliary long-term oxygen therapy for chronic respiratory insufficiency. Montreal: CETS, 1990.Google Scholar
7.Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec (CETS). Treatment of obstructive sleep apnea by nasal continuous positive airway pressure. Montreal: CETS. 1990.Google Scholar
8.Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec (CETS). Evaluation of low vs high osmolar contrast media. Montreal: CETS, 1990.Google Scholar
9.Consel d'évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec (CETS). Access to low osmolar contrast media: Legal and ethical considerations. Montreal: CETS, 1990.Google Scholar
10.Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec (CETS). Hemodialyzer reuse: Considerations of safety and costs: Executive summary. Montreal: CETS, 1991.Google Scholar
11.Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec (CETS). The reuse of permanent cardiac pacemakers. Montreal: CETS, 1991.Google Scholar
12.Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec (CETS). Evaluation of low versus high osmolar contrast media in general radiology: Update. Montreal: CETS, 1992.Google Scholar
13.Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec (CETS). Routine preoperative chest x-rays. Montreal: CETS, 1992.Google Scholar
15.Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec (CETS). The reuse of single-use cardiac catheters: Safety, economical, ethical and legal issues. Canadian Journal of Cardiology 1994, 10, 413–21.Google Scholar
14.Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec (CETS). The re-use of single-use catheters. Montreal: CETS, 1993.Google Scholar
16.Davies, L., Coyle, D., Drummond, M., et al. The current status of economic appraisal of health technology in the European Community: Report of the network. Social Science Medicine, 1994, 38, 1601–07.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Drummond, M.Evaluation of health technology economic issues for health policy and policy issues for economic appraisal. Social Science and Medicine, 1994, 38, 1593–600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Eurassess subgroup on dissemination and impact. The Inahta Network. Co-chair, Egon Jonsson Stockholm: SBU. 1996.Google Scholar
19.Hailey, D. M.The influence of technology assessments by advisory bodies on health policy and practice. Health Policy, 1993, 25, 243–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Hailey, D. M., & Crowe, B. L.The influence of health technology assessment on the diffusion of MRI in Australia. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1993, 9, 522–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Jacob, R., & Battista, R. N.Assessing technology assessment: Early results on the Québec experience. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1993, 9, 564–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Kimoff, R. J., Cosio, M. J., & McGregor, M.Clinical features and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Canadian Medical Association, 1991, 144, 689–95.Google ScholarPubMed
24.McGregor, M.The reuse of cardiac pacemakers. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 1992, 8, 697–701.Google ScholarPubMed
21.Jacob, R.Evaluation de I'influence et de I'impact des rapports du Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la sané. Québec: Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, Direction de la recherche et de l'évaluation, 1995.Google Scholar
25.Perry, S., Hanft, R., & Chrzanowski, R.Report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, Health Technology division. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1993, 9, 588–90.Google Scholar
26.Roy, D. J., Dickens, B. M., & McGregor, M. The choice of contrast media: Medical, ethical and legal considerations. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1992, 1321–24.Google Scholar