Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zklqj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T12:54:02.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can health technologies be assessed using routine data?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2005

Andrew J. Stevens ,
James Raftery  and
Paul Roderick
Andrew J. Stevens
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
James Raftery
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Paul Roderick
Affiliation:
University of Southampton and Southampton General Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The potential of routine data for health technology assessment (HTA) in the United Kingdom was assessed.

Methods: Compiled were a comprehensive list of routine databases, their classification according to data characteristics, literature review on their current use, and their comparison with key topics identified as priorities for HTA.

Results: Two hundred seventy health-care databases for England or the English regions were identified. Twenty-four included data on both health technology and patient health state. Eleven found some published use in effectiveness evaluation. Of 140 prioritized health technologies, only 22 could be identified in routine databases.

Conclusions: Routine data are plentiful but of limited use in HTA. The data sets usually do not include the effect of treatments. Coding is inadequate, and confidentiality regulations will make matters worse. Both need urgent attention.

Keywords

Routine dataAdministrative dataHealth technology assessmentHealth-care evaluationDisease registersRegistries

Information

Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 96 - 103
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Al-Shahi R, Warlow C. 2000 Using patient-identifiable data for observational research and audit. BMJ. 321: 1031– 1032.Google Scholar
Bashford JN, Norwood J, Chapman SR. 1998 Why are patients prescribed proton pump inhibitors? Retrospective analysis of link between morbidity and prescribing in the General Practice Research Database [see comments]. BMJ. 317: 452– 456.Google Scholar
Beck EJ, Mandalia S, Williams I, et al. 1999 Decreased morbidity and use of hospital services in English HIV-infected individuals with increased uptake of anti-retroviral therapy 1996-1997. National Prospective Monitoring System Steering Group. AIDS. 13: 2157– 2164.Google Scholar
Black N. 1996: Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 312; 1215– 1218.Google Scholar
Cartwright FF. 1977: A social history of medicine. New York: Longman; 118.
Cochrane A. 1972. Effectiveness and efficiency random reflections on the Health Service. Leeds: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust;
Davis CL, Marsh CL. 1999 Reduction of organ-retrieval damage and organ-discard rates. Lancet. 354: 1136– 1137.Google Scholar
Department of Health NHS Executive. 1994. Research and development in the new NHS: Functions and responsibilities. London: Department of Health;
Department of Health. 1992. Assessing the effects of health technologies: Principles, practice, proposals. London: Department of Health;
Department of Health. 2000. Breast Screening England 1998–1999. London: Department of Health;
Department of Health. 2000. Cervical Screening programme, England, 1998–1999. London: Department of Health;
Department of Health. 1999. NHS Immunisation Statistics, England 1998–1999. London: Department of Health;
Galloway MJ, Taylor PR, Proctor SJ. 1999 Implementing clinical governance in the United Kingdom: The role of a regional haematology group. Northern Regional Haematologists Group. Br J Haematol. 107: 680– 684.Google Scholar
Helliwell T, Hinde S, Warren T. 2001 Cancer registries fear collapse. BMJ. 322: 730.Google Scholar
HTA Programme. National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment. HTA priorities. Available at: http://www.hta.nhsweb.nhs.uk.
Hunt P. 2001. Health and Social Care Bill. London: House of Lords; 26 February
Jarman B, Gault S, Alves B, et al. 1999 Explaining differences in English hospital death rates using routinely collected data. BMJ. 318: 1515– 1520.Google Scholar
Knox E. 1991. Information needs in public health. In: Holland WW, Detels R, Knox G, eds. Oxford textbook on public health. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
Morris PJ, Johnson RJ, Fuggle SV, Belger MA, Briggs JD. 1999 Analysis of factors that affect outcome of primary cadaveric renal transplantation in the UK. HLA Task Force of the Kidney Advisory Group of the United Kingdom Transplant Service Authority (UKTSSA). Lancet. 354: 1147– 1152.Google Scholar
National Board of Health and Welfare. 1999–2000. National Health Care Quality Registers in Sweden. Stockholm: National Board of Health and Welfare;
Newton J, Garner S. 2002. Disease registers in England. A report commissioned by the Department of Health Policy Research Programme in support of the White Paper entitled Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation. 2002. Oxford: Institute of Health Sciences;
Office of Technology Assessment. 1976. Development of medical technologies: Opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: US Government Publishing Office;
Petrou M, Modell B, Shetty S, Khan M, Ward RH. 2000 Long-term effect of prospective detection of high genetic risk on couples' reproductive life: Data for thalassaemia. Prenat Diagn. 20: 469– 474.Google Scholar
Renal Association. 2002. The UK Renal Registry 2000. London: The Renal Association;
Sheldon TA. 1994 Please bypass the PORT [editorial, see comments]. BMJ. 309: 142– 143.Google Scholar
Taylor PR, Angus B, Owen JP, Proctor SJ. 1998 Hodgkin's disease: A population-adjusted clinical epidemiology study (PACE) of management at presentation. Northern Region Lymphoma Group. QJM. 91: 131– 139.Google Scholar
Templeton A, Morris JK, Parslow W. 1996 Factors that affect outcome of in-vitro fertilisation treatment. Lancet. 348: 1402– 1406.Google Scholar
The Danish Medical Research Council. 1996. Health Science Information Banks–Biobanks. Copenhagen: The Danish Medical Research Council;
The West of Scotland Coronary Preventive Study Group. 1995 Computerised record linkage: Compared with traditional patient follow-up methods in clinical trials and illustrated in a prospective epidemiological study. The West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. J Clin Epidemiol. 48: 1441– 1452.
Warren KS, Mosteller F. 1993 Doing more harm than good: The evaluation of health care interventions. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 703: 341.Google Scholar
Wigmore SJ, Seeney FM, Pleass HC, et al. 1999 Kidney damage during organ retrieval: Data from UK National Transplant Database. Kidney Advisory Group [see comments]. Lancet. 354: 1143– 1146.Google Scholar
Williams JG. 1995 Making routine data adequate to support clinical audit. “Routine” is inadequately defined [letter; comments]. BMJ. 310: 665– 666.Google Scholar