Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T17:42:57.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CAPACITY BUILDING IN AGENCIES FOR EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2016

Debjani Mueller ,
Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea ,
Tara Schuller ,
Marco Chiumente Open the ORCID record for Marco Chiumente [Opens in a new window] ,
Jeonghoon Ahn ,
Andres Pichon-Riviere ,
Sebastian García-Martí ,
David Grainger ,
Elizabeth Cobbs  and
Marco Marchetti
Debjani Mueller
Affiliation:
CMeRCdbmueller7@yahoo.de
Iñaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea
Affiliation:
OSTEBA
Tara Schuller
Affiliation:
IHE
Marco Chiumente
Affiliation:
SiFaCT - Italian Society of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics
Jeonghoon Ahn
Affiliation:
National Evidence Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency
Andres Pichon-Riviere
Affiliation:
ICES
Sebastian García-Martí
Affiliation:
ICES
David Grainger
Affiliation:
Lilly
Elizabeth Cobbs
Affiliation:
Merck
Marco Marchetti
Affiliation:
HTA Unit, University Hospital “A. Gemelli”
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Health technology assessment (HTA) yields information that can be ideally used to address deficiencies in health systems and to create a wider understanding of the impact of different policy considerations around technology reimbursement and use. The structure of HTA programs varies across different jurisdictions according to decision-maker needs. Moreover, conducting HTA requires specialized skills. Effective decision making should include multiple criteria (medical, economic, technical, ethical, social, legal, and cultural) and requires multi-disciplinary teams of experts working together to produce these assessments. A workshop explored the multi-disciplinary skills and competencies required to build an effective and efficient HTA team, with a focus on low- and middle-income settings.

Methods: This proceeding summarizes main points from a workshop on capacity building, drawing on presentations and group discussions among attendees including different points of view.

Results and Conclusions: The workshop and thus this study would have benefited from a larger variety of stakeholders. Therefore, the conclusions arising from the workshop are not the opinion of a representative sample of HTA professionals. Nonetheless, organizations and speakers were carefully selected to provide a valuable approach to this theme. Thus, these proceedings highlight some of the gaps and needs in the education and training programs offered worldwide and calls for further investigation.

Keywords

Healthcare technologyTechnology assessmentBiomedicalCapacity buildingHealth policyKnowledge management
Type
Policies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , 2016 , pp. 292 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Definition of HTA. http://www.inahta.org (accessed January 15, 2015).Google Scholar
2. Glossary, HTA. Definition of HTA. http://htaglossary.net/ (accessed January 15, 2015).Google Scholar
3. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). What is health technology assessment? http://www.eunethta.eu/about-us/faq#t287n73 (accessed August 18, 2015).Google Scholar
4. Banta, HD, Luce, BR. Health care technology and its assessment: An international perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
5. Banta, D. What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):7–9.Google Scholar
6. Atanasijevic, D, Brodsky, V, Cerbo, M, et al. on behalf of EUnetHTA Work Package 8. Systems to support HTA in Member States with limited institutionalization of HTA. EUnetHTA Handbook on Health Technology Assessment Capacity Building; 2008. http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/EUnetHTA%20Handbook%20on%20HTA%20Capacity%20Building.pdf. (accessed January 15, 2015).Google Scholar
7. Moharra, M KN, Estrada, MD, Parada, A, Cortés, M, Espallargues, M, on behalf of EUnetHTA Work Package 8. Survey report on HTA organisations. Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research. Catalan Health Service. Department of Health Autonomous Government of Catalonia Barcelona, Spain; 2008. http://eunethta.fedimbo.belgium.be/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/Survey%20report%20on%20HTA%20organisations.pdf (accessed January 15, 2015).Google Scholar
8. World Health Organisation. WHO Regional Office for Europe (2001). Institutionalization of Health Technology Assessment: Report on a WHO meeting, Bonn; 2001. June 30 - July 1, 2000.Google Scholar
9. Hofmann, B. Why not integrate ethics in HTA: Identification and assessment of the reasons. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2014;10:Doc04.Google Scholar
10. Arellano, LE, Willett, JM, Borry, P. International survey on attitudes toward ethics in health technology assessment: An exploratory study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:50–54.Google Scholar
11. Jonsson, E, Chamova, J. Survey results “Educational / training activities in INAHTA agencies”. International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA); 2000. http://www.inahta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/INAHTA_Survey_Training-Activities_2000.pdf (accessed January 15, 2015).Google Scholar
12. Skirton, H, Lewis, C, Kent, A, Coviello, DA. Genetic education and the challenge of genomic medicine: development of core competences to support preparation of health professionals in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010;18:972–977.Google Scholar
13. Salinas-Miranda, AA, Nash, MC, Salemi, JL, Mbah, AK, Salihu, HM. Cutting-edge technology for public health workforce training in comparative effectiveness research. Health Informatics J. 2013;19:101–115.Google Scholar
14. Patterson, F, Ferguson, E, Thomas, S. Using job analysis to identify core and specific competencies: implications for selection and recruitment. Med Educ. 2008;42:1195–1204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Rajan, A, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I, Moharra, M. Addressing issues in health technology assessment promotion: Motives, enablers, and barriers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:55–63.Google Scholar
16. Lopes, E, Carter, D, Street, J. Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia. Soc Sci Med. 2015;135:84–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Lopes, E, Street, J, Carter, D, Merlin, T. Involving patients in health technology funding decisions: stakeholder perspectives on processes used in Australia. Health Expect. 2015;19:331–344.Google Scholar
18. Buck, D, Gamble, C, Dudley, L, et al. From plans to actions in patient and public involvement: Qualitative study of documented plans and the accounts of researchers and patients sampled from a cohort of clinical trials. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e006400.Google Scholar
19. Kleme, J, Pohjanoksa-Mantyla, M, Airaksinen, M, et al. Patient perspective in health technology assessment of pharmaceuticals in Finland. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:306–311.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mueller supplementary material

Supplementary Table 1

Download Mueller supplementary material(File)
File 42.5 KB