Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:59:24.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A CONSULTATION GUIDE FOR ASSESSING THE APPLICABILITY OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES:A CASE STUDY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2017

Stephanie Polus ,
Lisa Pfadenhauer ,
Louise Brereton ,
Wojciech Leppert ,
Philip Wahlster ,
Ansgar Gerhardus  and
Eva Rehfuess
Stephanie Polus
Affiliation:
Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology Pettenkofer School of Public Health, LMU [email protected]
Lisa Pfadenhauer
Affiliation:
Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology Pettenkofer School of Public Health, LMU Munich
Louise Brereton
Affiliation:
College of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln ScHARR, University of Sheffield
Wojciech Leppert
Affiliation:
Department of Palliative Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences
Philip Wahlster
Affiliation:
Department of Health Services Research, University of Bremen Center for General Practice, Medical Faculty, Saarland University
Ansgar Gerhardus
Affiliation:
Department of Health Services Research, University of Bremen Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen
Eva Rehfuess
Affiliation:
Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology Pettenkofer School of Public Health, LMU Munich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The translation of research findings into policy and practice is crucially dependent on the applicability of such findings in a given decision-making context. We explored in a case study whether a generic consultation guide to assess the applicability of a health technology could be rapidly deployed and deliver useful insights.

Methods: A consultation guide based on the context and implementation for complex interventions (CICI) framework was developed and piloted to assess the applicability of reinforced home-based palliative care in three European countries. Individual consultations in England and Germany and a panel discussion in Poland were completed.

Results: Various barriers may hinder successful implementation of reinforced home-based palliative care in the three countries. Whilst the experts across all countries emphasized the lack of funding along with organization and structure as major barriers, information varied by country for many of the other identified barriers and facilitators. Participants in the pilot study provided positive feedback in terms of understanding the topic and purpose of the consultation, and both individual and panel consultations could be easily implemented.

Conclusions: In this case study, the consultation guide presented a pragmatic, ready-to-use tool to assess the applicability of a health technology. As shown here, it can be used in a generic manner without discrete empirical information on the technology in question or, ideally, makes use of specific information collected as part of a HTA. Further studies are needed to validate this guide and apply it to other types of health technologies and more diverse decision-making contexts.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentDecision support techniques or decision makingEvidence-based medicinePalliative care
Type
Theme Submissions
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 33 , Issue 5: Assessing Health Technologies in an Integrated Way-Results of the INTEGRATE-HTA Project , 2017 , pp. 577 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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. Medical Research Council. A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health. London: Medical Research Council; 2000.Google Scholar
2. Brereton, L, Wahlster, P, Lysdahl, KB, et al. Integrated assessment of home based palliative care with and without reinforced caregiver support: ‘A demonstration of INTEGRATE-HTA methodological guidances’ – Executive Summary [Online]. 2016. http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/ (accessed July 25, 2017).Google Scholar
3. Gomes, B, Calanzani, N, Curiale, V, McCrone, P, Higginson, IJ. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home palliative care services for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6:CD007760.Google Scholar
4. Carmeli, E. The invisibles: Unpaid caregivers of the elderly. Front Public Health. 2014;2:91.Google Scholar
5. suffering, Sherman DW. Reciprocal: The need to improve family caregivers' quality of life through palliative care. J Palliat Med. 1998;1:357–366.Google Scholar
6. Cambon, L, Minary, L, Ridde, V, Alla, F. Transferability of interventions in health education: A review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Burford, B, Lewin, S, Welch, V, Rehfuess, E, Waters, E. Assessing the applicability of findings in systematic reviews of complex interventions can enhance the utility of reviews for decision making. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:1251–1261.Google Scholar
8. Wang, S, Moss, JR, Hiller, JE. Applicability and transferability of interventions in evidence-based public health. Health Promot Int. 2006;21:76–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Oliver, K, Innvar, S, Lorenc, T, Woodman, J, Thomas, J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:2.Google Scholar
10. Chase, D, Rosten, C, Turner, S, Hicks, N, Milne, R. Development of a toolkit and glossary to aid in the adaptation of health technology assessment (HTA) reports for use in different contexts. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:1–142.Google Scholar
11. Rycroft-Malone, J. The PARIHS framework–A framework for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. J Nurs Care Qual. 2004;19:297–304.Google Scholar
12. EUnetHTA, EUnetHTA. HTA adaptation toolkit. http://www.eunethta.eu/outputs/eunethta-hta-adaptation-toolkit (accessed July 25, 2017).Google Scholar
13. Pfadenhauer, LM, Gerhardus, A, Mozygemba, K, et al. Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: The Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework. Implement Sci. 2017;12:21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Wells, M, Williams, B, Treweek, S, Coyle, J, Taylor, J, et al. Intervention description is not enough: Evidence from an in-depth multiple case study on the untold role and impact of context in randomised controlled trials of seven complex interventions. Trials. 2012;13:95.Google Scholar
15. Lysdahl, KB, Mozygemba, K, Burns, J, et al, eds. Guidance for assessing effectiveness, economic aspects, ethical aspects, socio-cultural aspects and legal aspects in complex technologies [Online]. 2016. http://www.integrate-hta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/IPP_Guidance-INTEGRATE-HTA_Nr.3_FINAL.pdf (accessed July 25, 2017).Google Scholar
16. Bogner, A, Littig, B, Wolfgang, M, eds. Experteninterviews: Theorien, methoden, anwendungsfelder. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwiss; 2009.Google Scholar
17. Heary, C, Hennessy, E. Focus groups versus individual interviews with children: A comparison of data. Ir J Psychol. 2006;27:58–68.Google Scholar
18. Fern, EF. The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects of group size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality. J Mark Res. 1982;1-13.Google Scholar
19. Yousuf, MI. Using experts’ opinions through Delphi technique. Practical assessment research & evaluations. http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=4 2007 (accessed July 25, 2017).Google Scholar
20. Lysdahl, KB, Hofmann, B. Complex health care interventions: Characteristics relevant for ethical analysis in health technology assessment. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2016;12:Doc01.Google Scholar
21. Wahlster, P, Brereton, L, Burns, J, Hofmann, B, et al. An integrated perspective on the assessment of technologies – INTEGRATE-HTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. In press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Polus et al supplementary material

Polus et al supplementary material 1

Download Polus et al supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 458.4 KB