Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine potential reasons why the use of breast conserving surgery (BCS) for breast cancer varies substantially between hospital teams in England, and in particular to examine whether colleague influence has a role in influencing BCS rates locally.

Methods: Routinely collected Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data relating to 420 surgical teams in England who performed more than ten breast cancer operations during the financial year 2006/07 were used to identify predictors of team BCS use. Team BCS rates (as a proportion of all types of breast excision surgery) were subject to a regression analysis that incorporated, as independent variables, a range of patient, organizational, and local demographic factors, as well as the BCS rate of colleagues working alongside them in the same hospitals(s).

Results: After adjusting for the effects of other variables, BCS use by colleagues working in the same hospital(s) was a significant predictor of a team's own BCS rate (standardized b = 0.224; p < .001), denoting a typical 3 percent increase in a team's BCS rate for every 10 percent increase in the BCS rate of colleagues.

Conclusions: The practice of colleagues seems to have a measurable influence upon a surgical team's BCS usage. Guidance from HTA organizations can set national standards about the use of new techniques and innovations, but dissemination can be either slowed down or accelerated by the influence of local colleagues. A strategy of disseminating guidance through professional networks or “local champions” could be a powerful avenue for change.

Objectives: A review of the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research's (AHFMR) 6-month Health Technology Skills Development Program was undertaken within an international context with the purpose of describing and assessing the current program, further formalizing the program based on identified opportunities for improvement, and enhancing collaborative linkages with other agencies. The objectives of the review were to (i) compare the AHFMR program with similar programs in other health technology assessment (HTA) agencies internationally; (ii) assess the value of the program; (iii) identify program strengths and opportunities for improvement; and (iv) review, critique, and recommend enhancements to the program model and role description.

Methods: The review involved a qualitative study design that included a survey of the Skills Development Program participants' experience and perceptions; semistructured interviews with program stakeholders, and a written survey of HTA agencies/programs in other Canadian and international jurisdictions.

Conclusions: The review concluded that the program was successful and valued by participants, the Foundation, and stakeholders in the policy and research communities. Findings suggest participant products have a potential for broad influence, including impact on funding decisions related to technology diffusion, influence through publications and presentations, and knowledge transfer in the participants' disciplines and employment settings. The main opportunity for enhancement was to differentiate the program into two streams according to different needs of participants, specifically between those who desire to be HTA producers and/or make HTA their careers, and those who desire to apply HTA in their employment capacity as policy or clinical decision-makers.

This article describes a 1-week training course in health technology assessment (HTA) presented in Malaysia by the Ministry of Health in 1996. Malaysia established an HTA unit in the Ministry of Health in 1995 and a National Health Technology Assessment Program in 1996. The purpose of the course was to develop HTA knowledge and skills in Malaysia, since these are largely lacking. The course consisted of didactic sessions and group work. Didactic sessions covered the principles of HTA. Group work was for the purpose of developing practical skills, and was based on reports from HTA agencies, published articles, and candidates for assessment suggested by course participants. Course participants were a mix of physicians, nurses, hospital administrators, and Ministry of Health officials. Experiences in this course may be helpful to others who wish to organize training courses in developing countries.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the analysis, discussion, and challenges of the price and reimbursement process of medicinal products in Bulgaria in the period 2000–15 and health technology assessment (HTA) role in these processes.

Methods: The dynamics of the reform, with respect to the healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors, are tracked by documentary review of regulations, articles, and reports in the European Union (EU), as well as analytical and historical analysis.

Results: Pricing and reimbursement processes have passed through a variety of committees between 2003 and 2012. Separate units for pricing and reimbursement of medicinal products were established in Bulgaria for the first time, in 2013, when an independent body, the National Council at Prices and Reimbursement of Medicinal Products, was set up to approve medicinal products with new international nonproprietary names (INN) for reimbursement in Bulgaria. Over the course of 2 years (2013–14), thirty-three new INNs were approved for reimbursement. In December 2015, a new HTA body was introduced, and assigned to the National Centre for Public Health and Analyses.

Conclusions: Although Bulgaria has current legislation on pricing and reimbursement which is in accordance with the EU rules, there is no mechanism for reporting and monitoring these processes or the financial resources annually, so as to provide an overall objective assessment and analysis by year. Therefore, this financial assessment should become a national policy objective for the future.

Much of the current interest in genetics stems from the Human Genome Project. Although the project will accelerate the identification of disease-related genes, as currently formulated it may retard discovery of gene function and effective treatments, thereby prolonging the stage in which people at risk of genetic diseases can be identified but not treated. This stage is fraught with ethical problems. The project's goal of sequencing the entire human genome could also detract from basic biological research, as could the growing interest of universities in biotechnology transfer to the commercial sector.

Objectives: This study explores the awareness and the degree of acceptance of the idea of the medical technology cryonics—the freezing of a corpse to revive it in the future—among German citizens.

Methods: Data were collected on the basis of a representatively weighted online survey of 1,000 people aged between 16 and 69 years and resident in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Results: Forty-seven percent stated that they had already heard of cryonics; 22 percent could imagine having their bodies cryonized after their deaths. For 53 percent, participation in the latest technological developments which correlated with the approval of the conceivability of cryopreservation was important. The majority of the respondents were not skeptical or cautious about innovations in the medical field.

Conclusions: The study shows that cryonics is known and accepted to a certain extent. However, a large proportion of respondents did not believe that it was desirable to use medical technology to overcome death, and fundamentally rejected a post-mortal continuation of life.

The survey aims to assess the knowledge and awareness of Reimbursement Bodies (RBs) and Patient Advocacy Groups (PAGs) in Lebanon and the possible involvement of patients in the health technology assessment (HTA) process in the absence of a well-established HTA structure and to identify the actions to be taken at this level. Structured questionnaires were administered to eleven key participants from both RBs and PAGs. The survey utilized two different questionnaires, each composed of two open-ended questions and ten close-ended questions. RBs recognized the need for clinical and technical guidelines to optimize the HTA process, whereas PAGs stated that they are familiar with the current assessment and reimbursement process. A lack of interaction between the payers and the PAGs was reported mainly due to the absence of laws that involve patients in the assessment process. All the payers and three out of five of PAGs encouraged the involvement of PAGs in the assessment process. They reported that patients require support, education, and training to be efficiently involved. A short-term plan for involving patients in the assessment process can be implemented in light of RBs' and PAGs' openness for such involvement. In the long run, the collaboration between both parties needs to be more formalized and structured. Education and training programs are to be suggested for other PAGs. The institutionalization of an HTA body that unifies all the fragmented RBs, including a patient's representation to optimize the reimbursement process and to engage patients, is recommended.

Digital health technologies (DHTs) such as health apps are rapidly emerging as a major disruptor of health care. Yet there is no well-established process of decision making for selecting DHTs that are worthy of investing resources in their validation to determine whether they are ready (safe, effective, and not too costly) for health related use. We report here on an Ontario-based initiative to support such decision making. Specifically, we developed a decision-making algorithm that uses approved criteria including the strategic direction of the health research institute and the hospital, and availability of resources. The Council of Academic Hospitals of Ontario has adapted our approach for other hospitals. We hope that other healthcare organizations, in and beyond Ontario, will consider this and alternative approaches, and that research will be conducted to evaluate such approaches.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) worked with patients and staff from six patient organizations to review existing health technology assessment (HTA) methods and coproduce proposals to improve the following: patient involvement, how patient evidence is identified and considered by committees, and the support offered to patient stakeholders. This engagement identified important factors that HTA bodies need to understand to enable meaningful patient and public involvement (PPI), such as having clearly documented processes, appropriate evidence submission processes, transparent decisions, and suitable support. This work demonstrated the benefits of HTA bodies working collaboratively with patient stakeholders to improve PPI. By doing so, HTA bodies can increase their knowledge and understanding of the barriers faced by patient stakeholders to develop appropriate solutions to remove them. The coproduction approach improved stakeholder engagement methods, provided a better analysis of data, supported the development of meaningful conclusions, and improved stakeholder relationships.

Objectives: Selecting technologies for formal assessment poses a great challenge to health technology assessment agencies. This study aims to contribute to the creation of a reference framework for the identification, filtering, and prioritization of new and emerging technologies which could be demanded in clinical practice within the next 1–2 years.

Methods: Technologies were identified using a prevalidated systematic Medline strategy. They were classified by medical specialty and then sent to selected professionals belonging to the medical units or areas responsible for their application, until there was a minimum of three participants per health care setting. A self-administered questionnaire was drawn up and health professionals were asked to: (1) assess the degree of innovation of the technologies, and (11) score their foreseeable clinical impact on the basis of predefined prioritization criteria (n = 4). Intra-rater reliability was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: The Medline search yielded 246 potentially relevant technologies. When analyzed by health care area or unit, sixty-eight were deemed to be high-impact innovative technologies (median score >6), with ICCs ranging from 0.03 to 0.83. The final list resulting from the aggregate analysis comprised fifty-one technologies.

Conclusions: This study constitutes an innovative contribution to horizon scanning, providing a systematic and reproducible basis for the identification and selection of relevant new and emerging technologies based on the views and values of health professionals involved in their use. In our opinion, the current proposal could be helpful and useful to many other organizations worldwide, serving to complement already existing strategies.

In assessing technologies for disabled people, the aims of habilitative or rehabilitative interventions, the concepts of disability and handicap, and the potential of existing and emerging technologies in various social arenas, as well as the structure of service delivery systems, are of importance. A discussion of these issues in the light of previous work on cost and effectiveness in the field is given.

The paper by Drummond et al. in this issue of the Journal discusses how the principles that have been proposed in previous papers by these authors might be used as the basis for benchmarking health technology assessment (HTA) organizations. This raises a number of important issues, some acknowledged and discussed by the authors, and some not. The commentary by Sampietro provides an analysis of many of these. Two issues strike me as fundamental in this debate: the need for an agreed and objective approach to describing health system decision-making systems; and the need for an agreed and objective approach to the assessment of the quality of HTA reports to support specific decisions.

Our present-day health sectors are increasingly characterized by both rapid technological change and growing visibility of its considerable consequences in terms of the quality and costs of health care. Improved health care decision-making in such an environment requires adequate and timely information on the benefits, risks, and costs of health care technology. Whereas traditionally, technology assessment focused predominantly on evaluating efficacy and (short-term) safety in a more or less “controlled” environment, an interesting shift in emphasis is now occurring. There is a growing recognition that improved information is also needed on the health and economic outcomes of technology as used in everyday clinical practice, i.e., on its effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and long-term safety in normal “uncontrolled” daily medical life. Moreover, because the treatment of particular clinical conditions (such as stable angina, gallstones, or prostatism) increasingly involves choices among alternative diagnostic and therapeutic options, these assessments should ideally provide effectiveness and cost-effectiveness information for all the various technological alternatives involved.