Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:53:51.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Overview of health technology assessment in France

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2004

Jacques Orvain ,
Bertrand Xerri  and
Yves Matillon
Jacques Orvain
Affiliation:
National Agency for Accreditation and Evaluation in Health (ANAES)
Bertrand Xerri
Affiliation:
National Agency for Accreditation and Evaluation in Health (ANAES)
Yves Matillon
Affiliation:
National Agency for Accreditation and Evaluation in Health (ANAES)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Health technology assessment (HTA) in France covers a variety of activities performed for different customers (e.g., health professionals in the field and policy makers in government) for the benefit of patients. To promote the improvement of quality in health care, France has set up a series of distinct agencies that report to the Ministry of Health but are also accountable to their other customers. We place particular emphasis on ANAES (National Agency for Accreditation and Evaluation in Health) whose main remit is HTA. We show how the diversity of HTA activities and their decentralization suggests tight collaboration among all the different bodies which perform HTA or are closely involved with HTA, and we provide examples of such collaboration.

Keywords

Public healthHealth technology assessmentClinical practice guidelinesFrench health-care system
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 25 - 34
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

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

ANAES. L'ostéoporose chez les femmes ménopausées et chez les sujets traités par corticoïdes: méthodes diagnostiques et indications. ANAES, Paris, Apr. 2001.
Cuzin B, Kirkorian G, Maisonneuve H. 2000 Cardiac pacemakers: When clinical evaluation lags behind technological progress. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 910– 923.Google Scholar
Durand-Zaleski I, Jolly D. 1990 High technology in health care. Qual Assur Health Care. 2: 321– 327.Google Scholar
Durieux P, Viens-Bitker C, Jolly D, Blum-Boisgard C. 1988 Examples of the influence of evaluation on health policy. Health Policy. 9: 325– 330.Google Scholar
ECHTA/ECAHI Report. December 2001.
Eisinger F, Alby N, Bremond A, et al. 1999 INSERM-FNCLCC collective expertise. Recommendations for medical management of women with genetic risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. Ann Génét. 42: 51– 64.Google Scholar
Espallargues M, Estrada MD, Sola M, Sampietro-Colom L, et al. Guide for the appropriate indications of bone densitometry to predict risk fractures, Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment. Jun. 1999.
Fleurette F, Banta D. 2000 Health technology assessment in France. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 400– 411.Google Scholar
Gindre I, Maisonneuve H, Riche B, Durocher A. 2000 Good clinical practice guidelines in the hospital. Current status in 207 public and private hospitals in 1999. Presse Méd. 29: 1807– 1812.Google Scholar
Glikman J, Pazart F, Casadebaig A, et al. 2000 Assessing the impact of a consensus conference on long-term therapy of schizophrenia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 251– 259.Google Scholar
INSERM. Ostéoporose: stratégies de prévention et de traitement. Expertise collective. Feb. 1997.
Maguerez G, Erbault M, Terra JL, Maisonneuve HM, Matillon Y. 2001 Evaluation of 60 continuous quality improvement projects in French hospitals. Int J Qual Health Care. 13: 89– 97.Google Scholar
Maisonneuve H, Ménard J. 1997 The Juppé plan. Lancet. 349: 792– 793.Google Scholar
Maisonneuve H, Cordier H, Durocher A, Matillon Y. 1997 The French clinical guidelines and medical references program: Development of 48 clinical guidelines for private practice over a period of 18 months. J Eval Clin Pract. 3: 3– 13.Google Scholar
Matillon Y, Durieux P. 2000 L'évaluation médicale.: du concept á la pratique Paris: Sciences Flammarion;
Moquet MJ, Loirat P, Matillon Y. Rapid assessment of medical and surgical procedures in France. In: ISTAHC proceedings, Berlin, June 2002, p. 146.
National Institutes of Health. 2000 Osteoporosis Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy. NIH Consens Statement. March 27-29; 17 (1): 1– 36.
Olsen O, Gotzche PC, 2001 Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet. 358: 1340– 1342.Google Scholar
Pazart L, Carpentier F, Durocher A, et al. 1999 Impact of the consensus conference on polycythemia vera: An opportunity to change or a sign of change? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 15: 602– 607.Google Scholar
Pazart LH, Massol J, Matillon Y. 1998 Including practice data to improve evidence-based guidelines. Example of guidelines on the management of thyroid nodules. J Eval Clin Pract. 4: 317– 323.Google Scholar
Weill C. 1995 Health care technology in France. In: Banta HD, Gelband H, Battista R, Jonsson E, eds. Health care technology and its assessment in eight countries. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 103– 135.
World Health Organization. World Health Report 2000—Health systems: Improving performance, June 2000.
Xerri B, Rüther A, Dauben HP. Rapid technology assessment depends on context and definition. In: ISTAHC proceedings, Berlin, June 2002, p. 231.