Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:19:19.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An evidence-based framework for identifying technologies of no or low-added value (NLVT)

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2019

María Eugenia Esandi Open the ORCID record for María Eugenia Esandi [Opens in a new window] ,
Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea Open the ORCID record for Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea [Opens in a new window] ,
Nora Ibargoyen-Roteta Open the ORCID record for Nora Ibargoyen-Roteta [Opens in a new window]  and
Brian Godman
María Eugenia Esandi
Affiliation:
Departamento de Economía, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahia Blanca, Argentina Instituto de Investigaciones Epidemiológicas de la Academia Nacional de Medicina de Buenos Aires, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea*
Affiliation:
Osteba, Ministry for Health, Basque Government, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain BIOEF, Basque Foundation for Health Innovation and Research, Barakaldo, Spain
Nora Ibargoyen-Roteta
Affiliation:
Osteba, Ministry for Health, Basque Government, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
Brian Godman
Affiliation:
Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, Strathclyde University, Glasgow, UK Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden Department of Public Health and Pharmacy and Pharmacy Management, School of Pharmacy, Sefako Health Sciences University, Pretoria, South Africa
*
Author for correspondence: Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To synthetize the state of the art of methods for identifying candidate technologies for disinvestment and propose an evidence-based framework for executing this task.

Methods

An interpretative review was conducted. A systematic literature search was performed to identify secondary or tertiary research related to disinvestment initiatives and/or any type of research that specifically described one or more methods for identifying potential candidates technologies, services, or practices for disinvestment. An iterative and critical analysis of the methods described alongside the disinvestment initiatives was performed.

Results

Seventeen systematic reviews on disinvestment or related terms (health technology reassessment or medical reversal) were retrieved and methods of 45 disinvestment initiatives were compared. On the basis of this evidence, we proposed a new framework for identifying these technologies based on the wide definition of evidence provided by Lomas et al. The framework comprises seven basic approaches, eleven triggers and thirteen methods for applying these triggers, which were grouped in embedded and ad hoc methods.

Conclusions

Although identification methods have been described in the literature and tested in different contexts, the proliferation of terms and concepts used to describe this process creates considerable confusion. The proposed framework is a rigorous and flexible tool that could guide the implementation of strategies for identifying potential candidates for disinvestment.

Keywords

DisinvestmentNo value technologyIdentification
Type
Method
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , 2020 , pp. 50 - 57
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.)

References

1.Elsaugh, AG, Hiller, JE, Tunis, SR et al. (2007) Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust New Zealand Health Policy 4, 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Leggett, L, Noseworthy, TW, Zarrabi, M et al. (2012) Health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: current practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 28(3), 220–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Prasad, V, Ioannidis, JP (2014) Evidence-based de-implementation for contradicted, unproven, and aspiring healthcare practices. Implement Sci 9, 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Niven, DJ, Mrklas, KJ, Holodinsky, JK et al. (2015) Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review. BMC Med 13, 255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Gnjidic, D, Elshaug, A (2015) De-adoption and its 43 related terms: harmonizing low-value care terminology. BMC Med 13, 273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, I, Chiumente, M, Dauben, HP (2017) The life cycle of health technologies. Challenges and ways forward. Front Pharmacol 8, 14. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2017.00014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Gallego, G, Haas, M, Hall, J, Viney, R (2010) Reducing the use of ineffective health care interventions: an Evidence Check rapid review brokered by the Sax Institute (www.saxinstitute.org.au), for the NSW Treasury.Google Scholar
8.Elshaug, AG, Moss, JR, Littlejohns, P et al. (2009) Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. MJA 190, 269–273.Google Scholar
9.Elshaug, AG, Hiller, JE, Moss, JR (2008) Exploring policymakers’ perspectives on disinvestment from ineffective health care practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Lomas, J, Culyer, T, McCutcheon, C, McAuley, L, Law, S (2005) Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation.Google Scholar
11.Orso, M, de Waure, C, Abraha, I et al. (2017) Health technology disinvestment worldwide: overview of programs and possible determinants. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 33(2), 239–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Gerdvilaite, J, Nachtnebel, A (2011) Disinvestment: overview of disinvestment experiences and challenges in selected countries. HTA- Projektbericht.; Nr. 57. Wien: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment.Google Scholar
13.Valentín, B, Blasco, JA (2012) Identificación de oportunidades de desinversión en tecnologías sanitarias. Madrid: Plan de Calidad para el SNS del MSSSI. Unidad de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias, Agencia Laín Entralgo. Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias: UETS 2011/07.Google Scholar
14.Henshall, C; Schuller, T, Mardhani-Bayne L on behalf of the HTAi Policy Forum (2012) Using Health Technology Assessment to support optimal use of technologies in routine clinical practice: the “challenge of disinvestment”. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 28(3), 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Polisena, J, Clifford, T, Elshaug, AG et al. (2013) Case studies that illustrate disinvestment and resource allocation decision-making processes in health care: A systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 29, 174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Mayer, J, Nachtnebel, A (2015) Disinvesting from ineffective technologies: lessons learned from current programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 31(6), 355–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Chambers, JD, Salem, MN, D'Cruz, BN et al. (2017) Review of empirical analyses of disinvestment Initiatives. Value Health 20(7), 909–918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Parkinson, B, Sermet, C, Clement, F et al. (2015) Disinvestment and value-based purchasing strategies for pharmaceuticals: an international review. PharmacoEconomics 33(9), 905–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Seo, HJ, Park, JJ, Lee, SH (2016) A systematic review on current status of health technology reassessment: insights for South Korea. Health Research Policy and Systems 14, 82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Agirrezabal, I; Burgon, J; Stewart, G; Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I (2017) Status of disinvestment initiatives in Latin America: results from a systematic Literature review and a questionnaire. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 33(4), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Maloney, MA, Schwartz, L, O'Reilly, D, Levine, M (2017) Drug disinvestment frameworks: components, challenges, and solutions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 33(2), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Calabrò, GE, La Torre, G, de Waure, C et al. (2018) Disinvestment in healthcare: an overview of HTA agencies and organizations activities at European level. Calabrò et al. BMC Health Serv Res 18, 148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Soril, L, Niven, DJ, Esmail, R, Noseworthy, TW, Clement, FM (2018) Untangling, unbundling, and moving forward: framing health technology reassessment in the changing conceptual landscape. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 34(2), 212–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Sutton, D, Qureshi, R, Martin, J (2017) Evidence reversal—when new evidence contradicts current claims: a systematic overview review. J Clin Epidemiol 94, 76–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Cambridge Dictionary (2017) Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/approach. Accessed 2017.Google Scholar
26.Ibargoyen-Roteta, N, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I, Asua, J, Benguria-Arrate, G, Galnares-Cordero, L (2009) Scanning the horizon of obsolete technologies: possible sources for their identification. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25(3), 249–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Elshaug, AG, Watt, AM, Mundy, L, Willis, C (2012) Over 150 potentially low-value health care practices: An Australian study. Med J Aust 197, 556–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Malik, HT, Marti, J, Darzi, A, Mossialos, E (2018) Savings from reducing low-value general surgical interventions. Br J Surg 105(1), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Esandi, ME, Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, I (2015) Use of guidelines for informing disinvestment processes: Argentina as a case study, Panel: Disinvestment in Latin America. What experiences, challenges and proposals could be key for a successful implementation? IP2, ISPOR 5th Latin America Conference.Google Scholar
30.Garner, S, Docherty, M, Somner, J et al. (2013) Reducing ineffective practice: challenges in identifying low-value health care using Cochrane systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy 18(1), 6–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Paprica, PA, Culyer, AJ, Elshaug, AG, Peffer, J, Sandoval, GA (2015) From talk to action: policy stakeholders, appropriateness, and selective disinvestment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 31(4), 236–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Harris, C, Allen, K, Brooke, V et al. (2017) Sustainability in health care by allocating resources effectively (SHARE) 6: investigating methods to identify, prioritize, implement and evaluate disinvestment projects in a local healthcare setting. BMC Health Serv Res 17(1), 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Haas, M, Hall, J, Viney, R, Gallego, G (2012) Breaking up is hard to do: why disinvestment in medical technology is harder than investment. Australian Health Rev 36, 148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Website of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) (2017) Available at: https://www.pcori.org/about-us. Accessed 2017.Google Scholar
35.Spurling, GK, Mansfield, PR, Montgomery, BD et al. (2010) Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians’ prescribing: a systematic review. PLoS Med 7(10), e1000352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Alkhaled, L, Kahale, L, Nass, H et al. (2014) Legislative, educational, policy and other interventions targeting physicians’ interaction with pharmaceutical companies: a systematic review. BMJ Open 4(7), e004880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Fleischman, W, Agrawal, S, King, M et al. (2016) Association between payments from manufacturers of pharmaceuticals to physicians and regional prescribing: cross sectional ecological study. BMJ 35, i4189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.García-Armesto, S, Angulo-Pueyo, E, Martínez-Lizaga, N et al. (2017) por el grupo Atlas VPM. Vol.5 Atlas de variaciones en la práctica médica en utilización de procedimientos de dudoso valor en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. Available at: http://www.atlasvpm.org/desinversion-2015. Accessed 2017.Google Scholar
39.Badgery-Parker, T, Pearson, SA et al. (2018) Low-value care in Australian public hospitals: prevalence and trends over time. BMJ Qual Saf 0, 1–10.Google Scholar
40.Brett, J, Elshaug, AG, Bhatia, RS (2017) A methodological protocol for selecting and quantifying low-value prescribing practices in routinely collected data: an Australian case study. Implementation Science 12(1), 58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41.Donaldson, C, Bate, A, Mitton, C, Dionne, F, Ruta, D (2010) Rational disinvestment. QJM 103(10), 801–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.Edwards, RT, Charles, JM, Thomas, S et al. (2014) A national Programme Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA) of health improvement spending across Wales: disinvestment and reinvestment across the life course. BMC Public Health 14, 837.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43.Grocott, R (2009) Applying programme budgeting marginal analysis in the health sector: 12 years of experience. Expert Rev of Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 9(2), 181–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44.Lemos, LLP, Guerra Junior, AA, Santos, M et al. (2018) The assessment for disinvestment of intramuscular interferon beta for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in Brazil. Pharmaco Economics 36(2), 161–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2012) NICE commissioning guides. London: NICE.Google Scholar
46.Deprescribingorg Website (2018) Available at: https://deprescribing.org. Accessed 2018.Google Scholar
47.Scientific Uncertainties, Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services. website. Available at: http://www.sbu.se/en/publications/scientific-uncertainties/. Accessed 2017.Google Scholar
48.Guerra-Júnior, AA, Pires de Lemos, LL, Godman, B et al. (2017). Health technology performance assessment: real world evidence for public healthcare sustainability. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 33(2), 279–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Esandi et al. supplementary material

Esandi et al. supplementary material 1

Download Esandi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 53.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Esandi et al. supplementary material

Esandi et al. supplementary material 2

Download Esandi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 129.1 KB