Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction:Technology assessment in hospital traditionally involves parameters of safety, effectiveness and costs. The prosperity of medical innovations in an era of scarce resources requires more precisely refined methodologies to measure ‘added value’. Our aim was to reveal the added values of technologies by asking professionals to prioritize their adoption into hospitals.
Methods:Twelve innovative technologies that were discussed for adoption over three years were controversial regarding their actual “added value”. Fifty-two managerial health professionals ranked these technologies on two scales: hierarchic importance (league scale) and comparative score rating (CSR), reflecting willingness-to-pay (WTP). The distribution of ranking indicates the internal agreement (IA) among the participants.
Results:There was only partial correlation between the two scales. For example, glucose-monitoring was ranked ‘highly important’ on the hierarchic (league) scale with high CSR/WTP, but with low IA. This can be interpreted as “a valuable technology but with disagreement on comprehensive adoption in the entire hospital”. The surgical robot was ranked ‘highly important’ on the hierarchic scale with low CSR/WTP, but with high IA, meaning “a valuable technology but with consensus to delay adoption in the hospital”. Overall, the participants raised thirty-two “values” that can be assorted into five clusters of significance: clinical effect (6 values), social/public dimension (8 values), patient-physician interaction (9 values), technological aspect (5 values) and policy-regulatory perception (4 values).
Conclusions:We identified different ‘;patterns’ for defining the ‘value’ of various technologies. Revealing these aspects can create a “set of values” of relative weights that may explain the added value considerations in prioritization of decision making. Interestingly, there were technologies that were ranked low, but achieved a high rating. This can be explained by individual personal-oriented added value perspectives. Using this innovative tool to incorporate social value-based scores can assist in understanding the determinants, beyond the current traditional rationing mechanism, that guide professionals while prioritizing medical technologies.
