Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:53:16.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recommendations in health technology assessments worldwide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2006

Eva Draborg  and
Christian Kronborg Andersen
Eva Draborg
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
Christian Kronborg Andersen
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study is to analyze statistically the possible determinants and implications of including or not including recommendations in health technology assessments (HTAs).

Methods: A sample of 433 HTAs published by eleven leading institutions or agencies in nine countries was reviewed and analyzed statistically by multiple logistic regression.

Results: The extent of policy and research recommendations in HTAs varies greatly from country to country. The content and scope of HTAs have some impact on recommendations. Extensive assessment of economic and organizational aspects increases the likelihood of including policy recommendations. Extensive assessment of technological and patient aspects increases the likelihood of including research recommendations, whereas extensive focus on economic aspects is negatively related to research recommendations. The most striking result is that the use of external partners for assessment increases the likelihood of including research recommendations in HTAs but not policy recommendations.

Conclusions: HTA commissioners, agencies, institutions, and funding authorities need to be aware of the consequences of the choices they make in advance of assessing health technologies. Outsourcing HTA to external partners suggests a greater likelihood of being told that “more research is needed.” The scope and content of HTAs has an impact on the type of recommendations, and country-specific preferences are strong predictors of recommendations in HTAs.

Keywords

International surveyHealth technology assessmentPolicy and Research Recommendations
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 155 - 160
Copyright
© 2006 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

Banta HD. 2003 The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy. 63: 121– 132.Google Scholar
Banta HD, Werkö L, Cranovsky R, et al. 1997 Special section. Report form the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 13: 133– 340.Google Scholar
Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M, et al. 2002 Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 18: 361– 422.Google Scholar
Draborg E, Andersen CK. 2006 What influences the choice of assessment methods in health technology assessments? Statistical analysis of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 22: 19– 25.Google Scholar
Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D. 2005 Time-trends in health technology assessments: An analysis of developments in composition of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 21: 492– 498.Google Scholar
Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. 2005 International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 21: 89– 95.Google Scholar
García-Altés A, Ondategui-Parra S, Neumann PJ. 2004 Cross-national comparison of technology assessment processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 300– 310.Google Scholar
Granados A, Jonsson E, Banta HD, et al. 1997 EUR-ASSESS Project subgroup report on dissemination and impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 13: 220– 286.Google Scholar
Hailey D. 2003 Toward transparency in health technology assessment. A Checklist for HTA Report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 19: 1– 7.Google Scholar
Jacob R, Battista RN. 1993 Assessing Technology Assessment. Early Results of the Quebec Experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 9: 564– 572.Google Scholar
Jonsson E, Banta HD, Henshall C, Sampietro-Colom L. 2002 Summary report of the ECHTA/ECAHI Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 18: 218– 237.Google Scholar
Lange M, Jørgensen T, Kristsensen FB, Stilvén S. 2000 The concept of health technology assessment. Views of applicants to funding of HTA Projects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 1201– 1224.Google Scholar
Lehoux P, Tailliez S, Denis J-L, Hivon M. 2004 Redefining health technology assessment in Canada: Diversification of products and contextualization of findings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 325– 336.Google Scholar
Liberati A, Sheldon TA, Banta HD. 1997 EUR-ASSESS Project subgroup report on methodology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 13: 186– 219.Google Scholar
Maynard A, McDaid D. 2003 Evaluating health interventions: Exploiting the potential. Health Policy. 63: 215– 226.Google Scholar
McGregor M, Brophy JM. 2005 End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 21: 263– 267.Google Scholar
Mears R, Taylor R, Littlejohns P, Dillon A. 2000. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Review of international health technology assessment (IHTA). Project Report 2000. London: NICE;
Menon D, Marshall D. 1996 The internationalization of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 12: 45– 51.Google Scholar
Menon D, Topfer L-A. 2000 Health technology assessment in Canada. A decade in review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 896– 902.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment. 1976. Development of medical technology: Opportunities for assessment. Washington DC: Office of Technology Assessment;
Perry S, Hanft R, Chrzanowski R. 1993 Report for the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, Health Technology division. Perceptions of Australian Health Technology Assessments: Report of a Survey. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 9: 588– 608.Google Scholar
Perry S, Thamer M. 1997 Health technology assessment: Decentralized and fragmented in the US compared to other countries. Health Policy. 40: 177– 198.Google Scholar
Rotstein D, Laupacis A. 2004 Differences between systematic reviews and health technology assessments: A trade-off between the ideals of scientific rigor and the realities of policy making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 177– 183.Google Scholar