Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:38:10.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TOWARD INTEGRATION IN THE CONTEXT OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: THE NEED FOR EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORKS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2017

Gert Jan van der Wilt ,
Ansgar Gerhardus  and
Wija Oortwijn
Gert Jan van der Wilt
Affiliation:
Radboud University Medical [email protected]
Ansgar Gerhardus
Affiliation:
University of Bremen
Wija Oortwijn
Affiliation:
Radboud University Medical Centre and Ecorys Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: A comprehensive health technology assessment (HTA) enables a patient-centered assessment of the effectiveness, economic, ethical, socio-cultural, and legal issues of health technologies that takes context and implementation into account. A question is whether these various pieces of evidence need to be integrated, and if so, how that might be achieved. The objective of our study is to discuss the meaning of integration in the context of HTA and suggest how it may be achieved in a more structured way.

Methods: An analysis of the concept of integration in the context of HTA and a review of approaches that were adopted in the INTEGRATE-HTA project that may support integration.

Results: Current approaches to integration in HTA are mainly methods of commensuration, which are not optimally geared to support public deliberation. In contrast, articulating evaluative frameworks could be an important means of integration which allows for exploring how facts and values can be brought to bear on each other.

Conclusions: Integration is not something that only needs to be addressed at the end, but rather throughout an HTA, right from the start. Integration can be conceived as a matter of accounting for the relevance of empirical evidence in view of a commitment to a set of potentially conflicting values. Various elements of the INTEGRATE-HTA project, such as scoping and the development of logic models, can help to achieve integration in HTA.

Keywords

IntegrationTransparencyEvaluative frameworks
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. 586 - 590
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. Preisler, G, Tvingstedt, AL, Ahlström, M. A psychosocial follow-up study of deaf preschool children using cochlear implants. Child Care Health Dev. 2002;28:403–418.Google Scholar
2. Venkatapuram, S. Health justice. An argument from the capabilities approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; 2011.Google Scholar
3. Anand, P. Capabilites and health. J Med Ethics. 2005;31:299–303.Google Scholar
4. Coast, J, Smith, RD, Lorgelly, P, Welfarism. Extra-welfarism and capability: The spread of ideas in health economics. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67:1190–1198.Google Scholar
5. Lorgelly, PK, Lawson, KD, Fenwick, EA, Briggs, AH. Outcome measurement in economic evaluations of public health interventions: A role for the capability approach? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010;7:2274–2289.Google Scholar
6. Canoy, M, Faber, MJ, Munneke, M, et al. Hidden treasures and secret pitfalls: Application of the capability approach to ParkinsonNet. J Parkinsons Dis. 2015;5:575–580.Google Scholar
7. Richardson, HS. Democratic autonomy. Public reasoning about the ends of public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
8. Richardson, HS. Practical reasoning about final ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.Google Scholar
9. Wahlster, et al. this volume.Google Scholar
10. Brereton, L, Ingleton, C, Gardiner, C, et al. Lay and professional stakeholder involvement in scoping palliative care issues: Methods used in seven European countries. Palliat Med. 2017;31:181– 192.Google Scholar
11. Guba, YS, Lincoln, EG. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE; 1989.Google Scholar
12. Brereton, et al. this volume.Google Scholar
13. Rohwer, A, Booth, A, Pfadenhauer, L, et al. Guidance on the use of logic models in health technology assessments of complex interventions. http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads (accessed August 18, 2017).Google Scholar
14. Lysdahl, B, et al. this volume.Google Scholar