Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-g2njx Total loading time: 0.202 Render date: 2021-10-28T07:14:37.263Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

COLLABORATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (EUnetHTA JOINT ACTION, 2010–2012): FOUR CASE STUDIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2013

Mirjana Huić
Affiliation:
Agency for Quality and Accreditation in Health Care and Social Welfare; Department for Development, Research and Health Technology Assessment
Anna Nachtnebel
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
Ingrid Zechmeister
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
Iris Pasternak
Affiliation:
Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment at THL
Claudia Wild
Affiliation:
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to present the first four collaborative health technology assessment (HTA) processes on health technologies of different types and life cycles targeted toward diverse HTA users and facilitators, as well as the barriers of these collaborations.

Methods: Retrospective analysis, through four case studies, was performed on the first four collaboration experiences of agencies participating in the EUnetHTA Joint Action project (2010–12), comprising different types and life cycles of health technologies for a diverse target audience, and different types of collaboration. The methods used to initiate collaboration, partner contributions, the assessment methodology, report structure, time frame, and factors acting as possible barriers to and facilitators of this collaboration were described.

Results: Two ways were used to initiate collaboration in the first four collaborative HTA processes: active brokering of information, so-called “calls for collaboration,” and individual contact between agencies after identifying a topic common to two agencies in the Planned and Ongoing Projects database. Several success factors are recognized: predefined project management, high degree of commitment to the project; adherence to timelines; high relevance of technology; a common understanding of the methods applied and advanced experience in HTA; finally, acceptance of English-written reports by decision makers in non–English-speaking countries. Barriers like late identification of collaborative partners, nonacceptance of English language and different methodology of assessment should be overcome.

Conclusions: Timely and efficient, different collaborative HTA processes on relative efficacy/effectiveness and safety on different types and life cycles of health technologies, targeted toward diverse HTA users in Europe are possible. There are still barriers to overcome.

Type
METHODS
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

1.Mäkelä, M, Rosén, M, Jamtvedt, G, Kristensen, FB, Mørland, B. Co-operation is strength: Joint achievements of the Nordic HTA centers. Michael. 2012;9:137146.Google Scholar
2.Sampietro-Colom, L, Semberg, V, Dolors Estrada, M, et al.European joint assessments and coordination of findings and resources. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;8:321360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Kristensen, FB. Development of European HTA: from Vision to EUnetHTA. Michael. 2012;9:147156.Google Scholar
4.Hailey, D, Marshall, D, Sampietro-Colom, L, et al.International collaboration in health technology assessment: a study of technologies used in management of osteoporosis. Health Policy. 1998;43:233241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jonsson, B, et al.Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessment for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Rottingen, JA, Gerhardus, A, Garrido, MV. Future challenges for HTA in Europe. In: Garrido, MV, Kristensen, FB, Nielsen, CP, Busse, R, eds. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe. Current status, challenges and potential. Observatory Studies Series No14, World Health Organization 2008, on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.Google Scholar
7.Garrido, MV, Busse, R. Health technology assessment. An introduction to objectives, role of evidence, and structure in Europe. World Health Organization 2005, on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.Google Scholar
8.Kristensen, FB, Gerhardus, A. Health technology assessments: what do differing conclusions tell us? BMJ. 2010;341:c5236CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Kristensen, FB, Nielsen, CP, Chase, D, Lampe, K, Lee-Robin, SH, Mäkelä, M. What is health technology assessment? In: Velasco-Garrido, M, Kristensen, FB, Palmhøj Nielsen, C, Busse, R, eds. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe-Current status, challenges and potential. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe: 2008:5378.Google Scholar
10.Henshall, C, Mardhani-Bayne, L, Fronsdal, KB, Klemp, M. On behalf of the HTAi Policy Forum. Interactions between health technology assessment, coverage, and regulatory processes: Emerging issues, goals, and opportunities. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:253260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Kristensen, FB, Lampe, K, Chase, D, et al.Practical tools and methods for health technology assessment in Europe: structures, methodologies, and tools developed by the European Network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009; 25(Suppl 2):6873.Google ScholarPubMed
12.Lampe, K, Mäkelä, M, Garrido, MV, et al.The HTA Core Model - A novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(Suppl 2):18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Wild, C, Hinterreiter, G, Warmuth, M, Erdös, J. POP db: The EUnetHTA planned and ongoing projects database: Content and use. Poster at EUnetHTA conference in Gdansk/Poland, 8-9 December 2011.Google Scholar
14.Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:088:0045:0065:EN:PDF. (accessed April 28, 2012).Google Scholar
15.Higgins, JPT, Green, S.Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed March 12, 2011).Google Scholar
16.Higgins, J, Altman, DG, Gotzsche, PC, et al.The Cochrane Collaborations tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Levels of Evidence 2009. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025 (accessed February 10, 2011).Google Scholar
18.Guyatt, G, Oxman, AD, Akl, E, et al.GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:383394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment. Horizon scanning in oncology - Part II: From pilot to routine. 2008. http://hta.lbg.ac.at/en/projekt_detail.php?iMenuID=80&iProjectID=30 (accessed May 2, 2012).Google Scholar
20.Nachtnebel, A.Second-line chemotherapy with cabazitaxel (Jevtana®) for the treatment of castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. DSD: Horizon Scanning in Oncology. Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment: 16; 2011.Google Scholar
21.Nachtnebel, A, Sotti, G, Vitale, A, Perrini, MR. Selective internal radiotherapy using yttrium-90 microspheres for primary and secondary liver malignancies. Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment; 2011.Google Scholar
22.Agency for Quality and Accreditation in Health Care, Department for Development, Research and Health Technology Assessment. The Croatian guideline for health technology assessment process and reporting, 1st ed.Zagreb. http://www.aaz.hr/main.php?ID=21. (accessed February 2011).Google Scholar
23.Zechmeister-Koss, I, Huić, M. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF) for diabetic macular oedema. Decision support document Nr. 43. Wien; Zagreb: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; Agencija za kvalitetu i akreditaciju u zdravstvu; 2011.Google Scholar
24.Zechmeister-Koss, I, Huić, M. Anti-Vascular-Endothelial-Growth-Factor (Anti-VEGF) bei diabetischem Makulaödem. Systematischer Review. Decision support document Nr. 43. Wien, Zagreb: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; Agencija za kvalitetu i akreditaciju u zdravstvu; 2011.Google Scholar
25.Zechmeister-Koss, I, Huić, M. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (anti-VEGF) in the management of diabetic macular oedema: a systematic review. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:167178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Shea, BJ, Grimshaw, JM, Wells, GA, et al.Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.The AGREE Collaboration. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. www.agreecollaboration.org. (accessed December 18, 2011).Google Scholar
28.Sorenson, C.The role of HTA in coverage and pricing decision: A cross-country comparison. Euro Observer. 2009;11:112.Google Scholar
29.Kleijnen, S, George, E, Goulden, S, et al.Relative Effectiveness Assessment of Pharmaceuticals: Similarities and Differences in 29 Jurisdictions. Value Health. 2012;15:954960.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

COLLABORATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (EUnetHTA JOINT ACTION, 2010–2012): FOUR CASE STUDIES
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

COLLABORATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (EUnetHTA JOINT ACTION, 2010–2012): FOUR CASE STUDIES
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

COLLABORATION IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (EUnetHTA JOINT ACTION, 2010–2012): FOUR CASE STUDIES
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *