Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T23:35:27.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A PROCESS OF PRIORITIZING TOPICS FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN KAZAKHSTAN

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2016

Lyazzat Kosherbayeva ,
David Hailey ,
Kural Kurakbaev ,
Adlet Tabarov ,
Ainur Kumar ,
Gulnara Gutzskaya  and
Elena Stepkina
Lyazzat Kosherbayeva
Affiliation:
Kazakh National Medical Universitylyazzat.k@mail.ru
David Hailey
Affiliation:
University of Wollongong
Kural Kurakbaev
Affiliation:
Kazakh National Medical University, International Healthcare Department
Adlet Tabarov
Affiliation:
The Medical Centre Hospital of the Presidents Affairs Administration of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Ainur Kumar
Affiliation:
Kazakh National Medical University, International Healthcare Department
Gulnara Gutzskaya
Affiliation:
Astana Medical University
Elena Stepkina
Affiliation:
National Center for Expertise of Medicines, Medical Devices and Medical Equipment
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop criteria for the prioritization of topics for health technology assessment (HTA) in the healthcare system of Kazakhstan.

Methods: Initial proposals for criteria were suggested through consultation with Ministry of Health (MoH) policy areas. These were refined through a workshop attended by HTA department staff, persons from medical universities and research institutes, and MoH policy makers. The workshop included discussion on methods used in international HTA practice. Opinions of participants on selection of criteria from those specified in a review of prioritization processes were used to define a list for inclusion in an instrument for routine use. A scoring system was established in later discussion.

Results: Selected criteria for HTA prioritization were burden of disease, availability of alternative technology, clinical effectiveness, economic efficiency, budget impact, and ethical, legal, and/or psychosocial aspects. For each criterion, a health technology under consideration is given a score from 3 (High) to 1 (Low). The total score determines whether the technology is of high to medium priority or of low priority. Determination of priorities for assessment, using the instrument, should be carried out by an expert group appointed by the MoH. The process was applied in 2014 to a selection of topics, and three health technologies were chosen for full assessments.

Conclusions: Criteria for prioritization have evolved with development of the HTA program in Kazakhstan. A method for HTA prioritization has been developed that is easy to apply, requires comparatively few resources, and is compatible with processes required by the MoH.

Keywords

health technology assessmentPrioritization of topicsKazakhstan
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , 2016 , pp. 147 - 151
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. Government, State Reform and Development Program of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2005-2010 (approved by Decree No. 1438 of 13 September 2004, 51 pp). Astana: Republic of Kazakhstan.Google Scholar
2. The World Bank. The “Kazakhstan health sector Technology transfer and institutional reform project” P101928/. http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P101928/health-sector-technology-transfer-institutional-reform?lang=en&tab=overview (accessed March 18, 2013).Google Scholar
3. Muratov, S, Hailey, D, Foerster, V, et al. Mentoring the development of a health technology assessment initiative in Kazakhstan. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:1–6.Google Scholar
4. Henshall, C, Oortwijn, WJ, Stevens, A, Granados, A, Banta, HD. Priority setting for health technology assessment: Theoretical consideration and practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;319:1293–1295.Google Scholar
5. Oortwijn, WJ. First things first, Priority setting for health technology assessment (PhD thesis) 2000, Leiden. Google Scholar
6. Davies, L, Drummond, M, Papanikoloau, P. Prioritising investments in health technology assessment: Can we assess the potential value for money? York: University or York, Center for Health Economics; 1999.Google Scholar
7. Department of Science and Technology. Health technology assessment: A selection of studies supported by Decit, Brasilia: F Series. Communication and Education in Health, Ministry of Health, Secretariat of Science, Technology and Strategic Inputs; 2011.Google Scholar
8. National Healthcare Development Program of the Republic of Kazakhstan “Salamatty Kazakhstan” for 2011-2015. Astana: Republic of Kazakhstan.Google Scholar
9. Noorani, HZ, Husereau, DR, Boudreau, R, Skidmore, B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:310–315 Google Scholar
10. Husereau, D, Boucher, M, Noorani, H. Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:341–347.Google Scholar