Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:06:09.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Health technology assessment agencies: An international overview of organizational aspects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2007

Francesco Martelli ,
Giuseppe La Torre ,
Elena Di Ghionno ,
Tommaso Staniscia ,
Massimo Neroni ,
Americo Cicchetti ,
Konrade Von Bremen  and
Walter Ricciardi
Francesco Martelli
Affiliation:
Italian National Institute of Health, Rome
Giuseppe La Torre
Affiliation:
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome
Elena Di Ghionno
Affiliation:
University of Chieti
Tommaso Staniscia
Affiliation:
University of Chieti
Massimo Neroni
Affiliation:
Italian National Institute of Health, Rome
Americo Cicchetti
Affiliation:
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome
Konrade Von Bremen
Affiliation:
University of Cassino
Walter Ricciardi
Affiliation:
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study is to make an international comparison of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Agencies, to show their similarities and differences.

Methods: An e-mail questionnaire was sent to thirty HTA agencies internationally. Questions related to the structure of the agency, the relationship with health-related institutions, the prescriptiveness of the decisions taken, the main core and the modalities to spread the assessment, and the type of funding.

Results: Twenty-four HTA Agencies answered the questionnaire: 25 percent in America, 4.2 percent in Australia, and 70.8 percent in Europe. Fifty-four percent of HTA Agencies are governmental institutions (83.3 percent have central government funding), while 62.5 percent have relationships with health-related governmental institutions. Of the agencies, 87 percent reported that their decisions are not prescriptive, while for 20.8 percent and 8.3 percent of them stated that this was the case totally or partially, respectively, especially for the governmental and American Agencies. Seventeen agencies (70.8 percent) declared their work on multiannual programs (77 percent of the governmental HTA Agencies and 100 percent of the American ones). The assessments mainly addressed diagnostic procedures (85.7 percent) and pharmaceuticals (25 percent). The most common way to disseminate results is by means of paper report (91.7 percent), followed by the Internet (16.7 percent), and seminars to expert audiences (12.5 percent).

Conclusions: The comparative analysis of HTA Agencies showed that governmental and American Agencies have a profound impact on the prescriptiveness of their assessment, and this could be linked to the fact that these types of Agencies work on multiannual programs. European and American HTA Agencies have many similarities in terms of type of assessment, funding, and dissemination of results.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentAgenciesOrganizational aspectsInternational comparison
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 414 - 424
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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, D, Jonsson, E. Commentary. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:280–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Banta, D, Oortwijn, W. Health technology assessment and health care in the European Union. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:626–635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Battista, RN. Expanding the scientific basis of health technology assessment: A research agenda for the next decade. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:275–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Draborg, E, Andersen, CK. Recommendations in health technology assessments worldwide. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:155–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Draborg, E, Gyrd-Hansen, D, Poulsen, PB, Horder, M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:89–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Gagnon, MP, Sanchez, E, Pons, JM. Integration of health technology assessment recommendations into organizational and clinical practice: A case study in Catalonia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006; 22:169–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Garcia-Altes, A, Ondategui-Parra, S, Neumann, PJ. Cross-national comparison of technology processess. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:300–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Hivon, M, Lehoux, P, Denis, JL, Tailliez, S. Use of health technology assessment in decision making: Coresponsibility of users and producers? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:268–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Jacob, R, McGregor, M. Assessing the impact of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:68–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Lavis, JN, Robertson, D, Woodside, JM, et al. How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q. 2003;81:221–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Lehoux, P, Blume, S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:1083–1120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Luce, BR, Brown, RE. The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third-party payers in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995;11:79–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Martelli, F, La Torre, G, Di Ghionno, E, et al. Health technology assessment agencies: An international comparison. Ital J Public Health. 2005;2 (Suppl 2):130.Google Scholar
14.Maynard, A, McDaid, D. Evaluating health interventions: Exploiting the potential. Health Policy. 2003;63:215–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Oliver, A, Mossialos, E, Robinson, R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Perry, S, Thamer, M. Health technology assessment: Decentralized and fragmented in the US compared to other countries. Health Policy. 1997;40:177–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Ricciardi, W, Cicchetti, A, Marchetti, M. Health technology assessment's Italian network: Origins, aims and advancement. Ital J Public Health. 2005;2:29–32.Google Scholar
18.Ross, SE, Lavis, JN, Rodriguez, C, et al. Partnership experiences: Involving decision makers in the research process. Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8:26–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Sheldon, TA, Guyatt, GH, Haines, A. Getting research findings in to practice. When to act on evidence. BMJ. 1998;317:139–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar