Hostname: page-component-8678677fb7-dgq2d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-10-10T13:39:55.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing the impact of health technology assessment in the Netherlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2008

Wija J. Oortwijn ,
Stephen R. Hanney ,
Andreas Ligtvoet ,
Stijn Hoorens ,
Steven Wooding ,
Jonathan Grant ,
Martin J. Buxton  and
Lex M. Bouter
Wija J. Oortwijn
Affiliation:
ECORYS Nederland BV
Stephen R. Hanney
Affiliation:
Brunel University
Andreas Ligtvoet
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology
Stijn Hoorens
Affiliation:
RAND Europe Cambridge Ltd.
Steven Wooding
Affiliation:
RAND Europe Cambridge Ltd.
Jonathan Grant
Affiliation:
RAND Europe Cambridge Ltd.
Martin J. Buxton
Affiliation:
Brunel University
Lex M. Bouter
Affiliation:
VU University Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Investments in health research should lead to improvements in health and health care. This is also the remit of the main HTA program in the Netherlands. The aims of this study were to assess whether the results of this program have led to such improvements and to analyze how best to assess the impact from health research.

Methods: We assessed the impact of individual HTA projects by adapting the “payback framework” developed in the United Kingdom. We conducted dossier reviews and sent a survey to principal investigators of forty-three projects awarded between 2000 and 2003. We then provided an overview of documented output and outcome that was assessed by ten HTA experts using a scoring method. Finally, we conducted five case studies using information from additional dossier review and semistructured key informant interviews.

Results: The findings confirm that the payback framework is a useful approach to assess the impact of HTA projects. We identified over 101 peer reviewed papers, more than twenty-five PhDs, citations of research in guidelines (six projects), and implementation of new treatment strategies (eleven projects). The case studies provided greater depth and understanding about the levels of impact that arise and why and how they have been achieved.

Conclusions: It is generally too early to determine whether the HTA program led to actual changes in healthcare policy and practice. However, the results can be used as a baseline measurement for future evaluation and can help funding organizations or HTA agencies consider how to assess impact, possibly routinely. This, in turn, could help inform research strategies and justify expenditure for health research.

Keywords

ImpactHealth technology assessmentThe Netherlands

Information

Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 259 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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. Bouter, LM, Knottnerus, JA. Beoordeling van maatschappelijke relevantie van toegepast gezondheidsonderzoek: het belang van publiceren in nationale vaktijdschriften als ruwe indicator [Assessing the societal relevance of applied health research: the use of publications in national journals as an indicator]. Ned Tijdschr voor Geneeskd. 2000;144:1178–1183.Google ScholarPubMed
2. Buxton, M, Hanney, S. Assessing payback from Department of Health Research & Development. vol. 1. The main report. Research report #19. Uxbridge: HERG, Brunel University; 1994.Google Scholar
3. Buxton, M, Hanney, S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1:35–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Buxton, M, Hanney, S, Packwood, T, Roberts, S, Youll, P. Assessing benefits from Department of Health and National Health Service R&D. Public Money Manage. 2000;20:29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Donovan, C. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Sci Public Policy. 2007;34:585–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. EMGO. Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine. Annual Report 2006. Chap 5. “Societal Impact.” Amsterdam: EMGO Institute; 2007.Google Scholar
7. Fitch, K, Bernstein, SJ, Dolores Aguilar, M, et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method user's manual, MR-1269-DG-XII/RE. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation; 2001.Google Scholar
8. Hanney, S, Buxton, M, Green, C, Coulson, D, Raftery, J. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Int J Health Technol Assess. 2007;11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hanney, S, Soper, B, Buxton, M. Evaluation of the NHS R&D Implementation Methods Programme. HERG Research Report No 29. Uxbridge: HERG, Brunel University; 2003.Google Scholar
10. Hanney, S, Grant, J, Wooding, S, Buxton, M. Proposed methods for reviewing the outcomes of health research: the impact of funding by the UK's ‘Arthritis Research Campaign.’ Health Res Policy Syst. 2004;2:4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. National Institutes of Health. Research program outcomes assessment material. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2000.Google Scholar
12. Raad voor Gezondheidsonderzoek. Onderzoek dat ertoe doet. De responsiviteit van universitair medische centra op vraagstukken in volksgezondheid en gezondheidszorg. No. 57 [Research that matters. Responsiveness of university hospital regarding public health and health care issues]. Den Haag: Raad voor Gezondheidsonderzoek; 2007.Google Scholar
13. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. The societal impact of applied research towards a quality assessment system. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; 2002.Google Scholar
14. Smith, R. Measuring the social impact of research. BMJ. 2001;323:528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Van Weel, C. Biomedical science matters for people—so its impact should be better assessed. Lancet. 2001;360:1034–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Wooding, S, Hanney, S, Buxton, M, Grant, J. Payback arising from research funding: Evaluation of the Arthritis Research Campaign. Rheumatology. 2005;44:1145–1156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. ZonMw. Annual Report 2001 of the ZonMw programme health care efficiency research. The Hague: ZonMw; 2002.Google Scholar
18. ZonMw. Annual Report 2002 of the ZonMw programme health care efficiency research. The Hague: ZonMw; 2003.Google Scholar