Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T07:01:54.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Assessing the impact of England's National Health Service R&D Health Technology Assessment program using the “payback” approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2009

James Raftery
University of Southampton
Stephen Hanney
Brunel University
Colin Green
University of Exeter
Martin Buxton
Brunel University


Objectives: This study assesses the impact of the English National Health Service (NHS) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program using the “payback” framework.

Methods: A survey of lead investigators of all research projects funded by the HTA program 1993–2003 supplemented by more detailed case studies of sixteen projects.

Results: Of 204 eligible projects, replies were received from 133 or 65 percent. The mean number of peer-reviewed publications per project was 2.9. Seventy-three percent of projects claimed to have had had an impact on policy and 42 percent on behavior. Technology Assessment Reports for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) had fewer than average publications but greater impact on policy. Half of all projects went on to secure further funding. The case studies confirmed the survey findings and indicated factors associated with impact.

Conclusions: The HTA program performed relatively well in terms of “payback.” Facilitating factors included the program's emphasis on topics that matter to the NHS, rigorous methods and the existence of “policy customers” such as NICE.

General Essays
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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.)



1. Academy Medical Sciences/MRC/Welcome Trust. Medical research: Assessing the benefits to society. London: Academy Medical Sciences; 2006Google Scholar
2. American Gastroenterologist Association. American Gastroenterologist Association medical position statement: Evaluation of dyspepsia. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:17531755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Black, N. Evidence based policy: Proceed with care. BMJ. 2001;323;275279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Buxton, M, Hanney, S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1:3543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Department of Health. National service framework for older people. London: Department of Health; 2001. Scholar
6. Duncan, PW, Zorowitz, R, Bates, B, et al. Management of adult rehabilitation care: A clinical practice guideline. Stroke. 2005;36:e100e143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Ferguson, B, Kelly, P, Georgiou, A, et al. Assessing payback from NHS reactive research programmes. J Manag Med. 2000;14:2536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Hanney, S, Buxton, M, Green, C, Coulson, D, Raftery, J. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:iiiiv, ix-xi, 1-180. ScholarPubMed
9. Hanney, S, Gonzalez-Block, M, Buxton, M, Kogan, M. The utilisation of health research in policy-making: Concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst. 2003;1:2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Hanney, S, Grant, J, Wooding, S, Buxtom, MJ. Proposed methods for reviewing the outcomes of research: The impact of funding by the UK's ‘Arthritis Research Campaign’. Health Res Policy Syst. 2004;2:4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Hanney, S, Soper, B, Buxton, M. Evaluation of the NHS R&D Methods Programme. HERG Report No.29. Uxbridge: Brunel University; 2003.Google Scholar
12. Jacob, R, Battista, R. Assessing technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1993;9:564572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Jacob, R, McGregor, M. Assessing the impact of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:6880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Johnston, SC, Rootenberg, JD, Katrak, S, Smith, WS, Elkins, JS. Effects of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs. Lancet. 2006;367:13191327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Kalra, L, Evans, A, Perez, I, et al. Alternative strategies for stroke care: A prospective randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2000;356:894899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Kalra, L, Evans, A, Perez, I, et al. A randomised controlled comparison of alternative strategies for stroke care. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:iiiiv, 1–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Kingwell, BA, Anderson, GP, Duckett, SJ, et al. Evaluation of NHMRC funded research completed in 1992, 1997 and 2003: Gains in knowledge, health and wealth. Med J Aust. 2006;184:282286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Kogan, M, Henkel, M, Hanney, S. Government and research: Thirty years of evolution. 2nd ed. Dortrecht: Springer; 2003.Google Scholar
19. Kwan, P, Johnston, J, Fung, AY, et al. A systematic evaluation of payback of publicly funded health and health services research in Hong Kong. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Shah, S, Ward, JE. Outcomes from NHMRC public health research project grants awarded in 1993. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001;25:556560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Stryer, D, Tunis, S, Hubbard, H, Clancy, C. The outcomes of outcomes and effectiveness research: Impacts and lessons from the first decade. Health Serv Res. 2000;35 (pt 1):977993.Google ScholarPubMed
22. Ward, E, King, M, Lloyd, M, et al. Randomised controlled trial of nondirective counselling, cognative-behaviour therapy and usual general practitioner care for patients with depression. I: Clinical effectiveness. BMJ. 2000;321:13831388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed