Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:08:46.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Which are the Best Information Sources for Identifying Emerging Health Care Technologies?: An International Delphi Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Glenn Robert
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
John Gabbay
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Andrew Stevens
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham

Abstract

The purpose of this survey was to assess potential information sources for identifying new health care technologies. A three-round Delphi study was conducted, involving 38 selected experts who suggested and assessed potential sources by applying agreed criteria. Twenty-six potential information sources were considered. Timeliness, time efficiency, and sensitivity were important criteria in determining which were the most important sources. The eight recommended sources were: pharmaceutical journals, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, specialist medical journals, key medical journals, medical engineering companies, private health care providers, newsletters and bulletins from other health technology assessment agencies, and groups of expert health professionals. There is a need to use a combination of sources because the most useful sources will vary according to the type of technology under consideration.

Type
Special Section: Early Identification and Assessment of Emerging Health Technology
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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.Banta, H. D., & Gelijns, A. C.The future and health care technology: Implications of a system for early identification. World Health Statistics Quarterly, 1994, 47, 140–48.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Bloomberg, C. A., Marylander, S. J., & Yaeger, P. M.Patenting medical technology. New England Journal of Medicine, 1987, 317, 565–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Buxton, M. J.Economic forces and hospital technology. A perspective from Europe. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1987, 3, 241–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Dent, T. H. S., & Hawke, S.Too soon to market. British Medical Journal, 1997, 315, 1248–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Gelijns, A. C.Innovations in clinical practice: The dynamics of medical technology development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991.Google Scholar
6.Jones, J., & Hunter, D.Consensus methods for medical and health services research. British Medical Journal, 1995, 311, 376–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Levine, A.A model for health projections using knowledgeable informants. World Health Statistics Quarterly, 1984, 37, 306–17.Google Scholar
8.Milner, P., Walshe, K., Lipp, A., & Milne, R.Method for rigorously assessing cost effectiveness of new drugs must be set up. (letter). British Medical Journal, 1997, 315, 953–54.Google Scholar
9.Peckham, M.Towards research-based health care. In Newsom-davis, J., & Weatherall, D.j. (eds.), Health policy and technological innovation. London: Chapman & Hall Medical, 1994, 145–62.Google Scholar
10.Rowe, G., Wright, G., & Bolger, F.Delphi: A re-evaluation of research and theory. Technological forecasting and social change, 1991, 39, 235–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Scenario Commission on Future Health Care Technology. Anticipating and assessing health care technology, vol. 1: General considerations and policy conclusions. The Nethelands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987.Google Scholar
12.Sculpher, M., Drummond, M., & Buxton, M.The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 1997, 2, 2630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Stevens, A., Robert, G., & Gabbay, J.Identifying new health care technologies in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1997, 13, 5967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed