Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:15:26.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PLANNED AND ONGOING PROJECTS (POP) DATABASE: DEVELOPMENT AND RESULTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2015

Claudia Wild ,
Judit Erdös ,
Marisa Warmuth ,
Gerda Hinterreiter ,
Peter Krämer  and
Patrice Chalon Open the ORCID record for Patrice Chalon [Opens in a new window]
Claudia Wild
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment (LBI-HTA)[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Judit Erdös
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment (LBI-HTA)[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Marisa Warmuth
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment (LBI-HTA)[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Gerda Hinterreiter
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment (LBI-HTA)[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Peter Krämer
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment (LBI-HTA)[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Patrice Chalon
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment (LBI-HTA)[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to present the development, structure and results of a database on planned and ongoing health technology assessment (HTA) projects (POP Database) in Europe.

Methods: The POP Database (POP DB) was set up in an iterative process from a basic Excel sheet to a multifunctional electronic online database. The functionalities, such as the search terminology, the procedures to fill and update the database, the access rules to enter the database, as well as the maintenance roles, were defined in a multistep participatory feedback loop with EUnetHTA Partners.

Results: The POP Database has become an online database that hosts not only the titles and MeSH categorizations, but also some basic information on status and contact details about the listed projects of EUnetHTA Partners. Currently, it stores more than 1,200 planned, ongoing or recently published projects of forty-three EUnetHTA Partners from twenty-four countries. Because the POP Database aims to facilitate collaboration, it also provides a matching system to assist in identifying similar projects. Overall, more than 10 percent of the projects in the database are identical both in terms of pathology (indication or disease) and technology (drug, medical device, intervention). In addition, approximately 30 percent of the projects are similar, meaning that they have at least some overlap in content.

Conclusions: Although the POP DB is successful concerning regular updates of most national HTA agencies within EUnetHTA, little is known about its actual effects on collaborations in Europe. Moreover, many non-nationally nominated HTA producing agencies neither have access to the POP DB nor can share their projects.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentEUnetHTA JACollaborationCooperation cross-border health care directive
Type
Theme Submissions
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 5 , November 2014 , pp. 497 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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. CRD/Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD-Databases: DARE, NHS EED, HTA. York: University of York; 2014. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ (accessed February 17, 2014).Google Scholar
2. Kristensen, F, Lampe, K, Chase, D, et al. Practical tools and methods for health technology assessment in Europe: Structures, methodologies, and tools developed by the European Network for Health Technology Assessment/EUnetHTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Poulin, P, Austen, L, Scott, C, et al. Introduction of new technologies and decision making processes: A framework to adapt a Local Health Technology Decision Support Program for other local settings. Med Devices (Auckl). 2013;18:185–193.Google Scholar
4. Neikter, S, Rehnqvist, N, Rosén, M, Dahlgren, H. Toward a new information infrastructure in health technology assessment: Communication, design, process, and results. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):92-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. INAHTA/International Network of Agencies in Health Technology Assessment. Joint projects. 2014. http://www.inahta.org/Publications/Joint-project/ (accessed February 17, 2014).Google Scholar
6. Hailey, D. Development of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):24–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. CRD/Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews . York: University of York 2014; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (accessed February 17, 2014).Google Scholar
8. Booth, A. PROSPERO's progress and activities 2012/13. Syst Rev. 2013;2:111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Booth, A, Clarke, M, Ghersi, D, Moher, D, Petticrew, M, Stewart, L. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet Oncol. 2011;377:108–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Booth, A, Clarke, M, Dooley, G, et al. PROSPERO at one year: An evaluation of its utility. Syst Rev. 2013;2:4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Booth, A, Clarke, M, Dooley, G, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: An international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012;1:2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Booth, A, Clarke, M, Ghersi, D, et al. Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: An international consultation. PLoS One. 2011;6:e27319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Huic, M, Nachtnebel, A, Zechmeister, I, Pasternak, I, Wild, C. Collaboration in HTA through the EUnetHTA Joint Action project (2010–2012): Four case studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:323–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Booth, A, Wright, K, Outhwaite, H. Centre for reviews and dissemination databases: Value, content, and developments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:470–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Wild et al. supplementary material

Figure

Download Wild et al. supplementary material(File)
File 239.1 KB