Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:53:07.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific Development of HTA—A Proposal by the Health Technology Assessment International Scientific Development and Capacity Building Committee

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2019

Gert Jan van der Wilt Open the ORCID record for Gert Jan van der Wilt [Opens in a new window] ,
Alric Rüther  and
Rebecca Trowman
Gert Jan van der Wilt*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Medical Center
Alric Rüther
Affiliation:
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWIG)
Rebecca Trowman
Affiliation:
Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi)
*
Author for correspondence: Gert Jan van der Wilt, E-mail: GertJan.vanderWilt@radboudumc.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

To report from the Scientific Development and Capacity Building Committee of Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) on activities that are being undertaken within HTAi regarding the promotion of scientific rigor in the field of health technology assessment (HTA).

Methods

Retrieval of definitions of HTA that the SDCB committee considered reflective of the current practice of HTA, followed by a narrative synthesis of the core components of HTA.

Results

Several definitions of HTA have been provided, all sharing the notion that HTA is the formal, systematic, and transparent inquiry into the meaning and value, broadly defined, of health technologies, when used in specific patient populations.

Many frameworks and tools have been developed for assessing the quality of specific tasks that may be conducted in the context of HTA. Collating such frameworks and tools is likely to be helpful in developing standards and in providing guidance as to how the scientific quality of HTA may be secured. Two current trends in HTA were noted: a stronger health systems focus, and the need to involve stakeholders throughout the HTA process. A wider systems’ perspective requires that plausible alternative scenarios are being developed, and wide consultation of various stakeholders is a prerequisite to the development of such scenarios with data from various sources.

Conclusions

Current trends in HTA will lead to different demands on the HTA expert. The task of this emerging policy professional would be not just to provide technical information for problem-solving, but also to combine it with a new function of facilitating public deliberation and learning.

Keywords

StandardsQualitySocial responsibilityStakeholder participationSystems analysis
Type
Article Commentary
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , 2019 , pp. 263 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

This study is presented on behalf of the HTAi Scientific Development and Capacity Building (SDCB) committee: Ken Bond, Institute of Health Economics, Canada; Yingyao Chen, Key Lab of HTA, Ministry of Health, China; Sebastian Garcia Marti, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Argentina; Janet Martin, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, Canada; Wija Oortwijn, Radboud University Medical Centre, the Netherlands; Andrés Pichon Riviere, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Argentina; Franz Pichler, Eli Lilly, Australia; Anna Scott, University of Sydney, Australia; Yue Xiao, China National Health Development Research Center, Division of Policy Evaluation and HTA, China. Financial Support: N/A. Ethics Committee Approval: N/A.

References

1.WHO (2015) 2015 Global Survey on Health Technology Assessment by National Authorities. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
2.Weinstein, M, O'Brien, B, Hornberger, J, et al. (2003) Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: Report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices – Modeling studies. Value Health 6, 9–17.Google Scholar
3.Squires, H, Chilcott, J, Akehurst, R, Burr, J, Kelly, M (2016) A framework for developing structure of public health economic models. Value Health 19, 588–601. 5. Baio G (2017) Statistical modeling for health economic evaluations. Ann Rev Statistics Appl 5, 289–309.Google Scholar
4.Husereau, D, Drummond, M, Petrou, S, et al. (2013) Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ 346, doi.org/10/1136/bmj.f1049.Google Scholar
5.Sharma, T, Choudhury, M, Rejon-Parilla, JC, Jonsson, P, Garner, S (2018) Using HTA and guideline development as a tool for research priority setting the NICE way. Reducing research waste by identifying the right research to fund. BMJ Open 8, e019777Google Scholar
6.Drummond, M, Schwartz, JS, Jonsson, B, et al. (2008) Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24, 362–368.Google Scholar
7.Panayidou, K, Gsteiger, S, Egger, M, et al. (2016) GetReal in mathematical modelling: A review of studies predicting drug effectiveness in the real world. Res Synth Methods 7, 264–277.Google Scholar
8.Kristensen, FB, Lampe, K, Chase, DL et al. (2009) Practical tools and methods for health technology assessment in Europe: Structures, methodologies, and tools developed by the European Network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA. Int J technol Assess 25(Suppl 2), 1–8.Google Scholar
9.Fischer, F (2009) Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
10.Lehoux, P (2006) The problem of health technology. Policy implications for modern health care systems. New York / London: Routledge.Google Scholar
11.Corluka, A, Hyder, AA, Segura, E, Winch, P, McLean, RK (2015) Survey of Argentine health researchers on the use of evidence in policymaking. PLoS One 10, e0125711.Google Scholar
12.Liu, W, Shi, L, Pong, RW, et al. (2018) Determinants of knowledge translation form health technology assessment to policy-making in China: From the perspective of researchers. PLoS One 13, e0190732.Google Scholar
13.McGregor, M, Brophy, JM (2005) End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 21, 263–267.Google Scholar
14.Rotstein, D, Laupacis, A (2004) Differences between systematic reviews and health technology assessments: A trade-off between the ideals of scientific rigor and the realities of policy making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 20, 177–183.Google Scholar
15.Rocchi, A, Chabot, I, Glennie, J (2015) Evolution of health technology assessment: Best practices of the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 7, 287–298.Google Scholar
16.Wild, C, Stricka, M, Patera, N (2017) Guidance for the development of a national HTA strategy. Health Pol Technol 6, 339–347.Google Scholar
17.Sadowski, J (2015) Office of Technology Assessment: History, implementation, and participatory critique. Technol Soc 42, 9–20.Google Scholar
18.van der Wilt, GJ, Kievit, W, Oortwijn, W (2017) The added value of integrate-HTA guidance in the work processes of Health Technology Assessment agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 33, 597–598.Google Scholar
19.Forsberg, EA, Quaglio, GL, O'Kane, H, Karapiperis, T, van Woensel, L, Arnaldi, S (2015) Assessment of science and technologies: Advising for and with responsibility. Technol Soc 42, 21–27.Google Scholar
20.Fischer, F (2004) Professional expertise in a deliberative democracy. The Good Society 13, 21–27.Google Scholar
21.Coates, JF (2016) A 21st century agenda for technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 113, 107–109.Google Scholar
22.O’Çathain, A, Murphy, E, Nicholl, J (2007) Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res 7, 85.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

van der Wilt et al. supplementary material

van der Wilt et al. supplementary material 1

Download van der Wilt et al. supplementary material(File)
File 24.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

van der Wilt et al. supplementary material

van der Wilt et al. supplementary material 2

Download van der Wilt et al. supplementary material(File)
File 20.7 KB