Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA

Kristensen, Finn Børlum; Husereau, Don; Huić, Mirjana; Drummond, Michael; Berger, Marc L.; Bond, Kenneth; Augustovski, Federico; Booth, Andrew; Bridges, John F.P.; Grimshaw, Jeremy; IJzerman, Maarten Joost; Jonsson, Egon; Ollendorf, Daniel A.; Rüther, Alric; Siebert, Uwe; Sharma, Jitendar Kumar; Wailoo, Allan

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.010

Cited by 84 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 97 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although HTA systems and implementation plans are not fully transferable due to several factors, relevant international practices still should be considered in designing country-specific roadmaps. The ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report highlighted that many good practices had been developed in areas of assessment and some other key aspects of defining HTA processes (Kristensen et al, 2019). The World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (WHO EMRO) can facilitate this process by providing unbiased and politically neutral guidance into national health policies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Implementation of Health Technology Assessment in the Middle East and North Africa: Comparison Between the Current and Preferred Status

Fasseeh

Karam

Jameleddine³

et al. 2020

Front. Pharmacol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The success of HTA implementation partially depends on how much financial resources are invested into both HTA phases. The assessment phase focuses on rigorous review and synthesis of scientific evidence, which is followed by the appraisal phase, the contextualization of assessment results (Kristensen et al, 2019).…”

Section: Funding Htamentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of Health Technology Assessment in the Middle East and North Africa: Comparison Between the Current and Preferred Status

Fasseeh

Karam

Jameleddine³

et al. 2020

Front. Pharmacol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Health technology assessment (HTA) is used to inform decision-making, such as coverage-decision making, and is described as a process that includes governance and structure, scoping, assessment, appraisal and implementation and monitoring. 1 There is broad recognition that current HTA processes are ill fitted to take into account the wide range and diversity of stakeholder values and lead to insufficient sets of information. Ethical issues in particular are left unaddressed, thereby compromising the legitimacy of eventual decisions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe

Oortwijn¹,

Jansen²,

Baltussen³

2019

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were recently introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes towards more legitimate decision-making. The EDP framework provides guidance that covers the HTA process, ie, contextual factors, installation of an appraisal committee, selecting health technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, and communication and appeal. The aims of this study were to identify the level of use of EDPs by HTA agencies, identify their needs for guidance, and to learn about best practices. Methods: A questionnaire for an online survey was developed based on the EDP framework, consisting of elements that reflect each part of the framework. The survey was sent to members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Two weeks following the invitation, a reminder was sent. The data collection took place between September-December 2018. Results: Contact persons from 27 member agencies filled out the survey (response rate: 54%), of which 25 completed all questions. We found that contextual factors to support HTA development and the critical elements regarding conducting and reporting on HTA are overall in place. Respondents indicated that guidance was needed for specific elements related to selecting technologies and criteria, appraisal, and communication and appeal. With regard to best practices, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, UK) were most often mentioned. Conclusion: This is the first survey among HTA agencies regarding the use of EDPs and provides useful information for further developing a practical guide for HTA agencies around the globe. The results could support HTA agencies in improving their processes towards more legitimate decision-making, as they could serve as a baseline measurement for future monitoring and evaluation.

show abstract

“…This is partly because it is NICE's 'gold standard' reference case, with NICE's guidelines [3] informing HTA processes internationally [4]. There are several papers debating the extent that economic evaluations of different forms of interventions fit a typical HTA [33,34], such that current guidelines may not be fully applicable, including: public health [35][36][37], antimicrobials [38], diagnostics [39], medical devices [40], genetics [41], digital [42], environmental [43], and service and delivery interventions [33,44]. Whatever the intervention of interest, Drummond et al [26] suggest that an economic evaluation would "explicitly consider the relative consequences of the alternatives and compare them with the relative costs" (p. 5).…”

Section: Economic Evaluations and Partial Evaluations: Methods And DImentioning

confidence: 99%

Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides an educational review covering the consideration of conducting 'value for money' analyses as part of non-randomised study designs including service evaluations. These evaluations represent a vehicle for producing evidence such as value for money of a care intervention or service delivery model. Decision makers including charities and local and national governing bodies often rely on evidence from non-randomised data and service evaluations to inform their resource allocation decision-making. However, as randomised data obtained from randomised controlled trials are considered the 'gold standard' for assessing causation, the use of this alternative vehicle for producing an evidence base requires careful consideration. We refer to value for money analyses, but reflect on methods associated with economic evaluations as a form of analysis used to inform resource allocation decision-making alongside a finite budget. Not all forms of value for money analysis are considered a full economic evaluation with implications for the information provided to decision makers. The type of value for money analysis to be conducted requires considerations such as the outcome(s) of interest, study design, statistical methods to control for confounding and bias, and how to quantify and describe uncertainty and opportunity costs to decision makers in any resulting value for money estimates. Service evaluations as vehicles for producing evidence present different challenges to analysts than what is commonly associated with research, randomised controlled trials and health technology appraisals, requiring specific study design and analytic considerations. This educational review describes and discusses these considerations, as overlooking them could affect the information provided to decision makers who may make an 'ill-informed' decision based on 'poor' or 'inaccurate' information with long-term implications. We make direct comparisons between randomised controlled trials relative to non-randomised data as vehicles for assessing causation; given 'gold standard' randomised controlled trials have limitations. Although we use UK-based decision makers as examples, we reflect on the needs of decision makers internationally for evidence-based decision-making specific to resource allocation. We make recommendations based on the experiences of the authors in the UK, reflecting on the wide variety of methods available, used as documented in the empirical literature. These methods may not have been fully considered relevant to non-randomised study designs and/or service evaluations, but could improve and aid the analysis conducted to inform the relevant value for money decision problem.

show abstract

Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA

Cited by 84 publications

References 97 publications

Implementation of Health Technology Assessment in the Middle East and North Africa: Comparison Between the Current and Preferred Status

Implementation of Health Technology Assessment in the Middle East and North Africa: Comparison Between the Current and Preferred Status

Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe

Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About