Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-jb2ch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-01T09:26:59.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2016

Laura Sampietro-Colom
Health Technology Assessment Unit, Research and Innovation Directorate, Hospital Clínic de
Krzysztof Lach
Department of Innovation, Fundació Clínic per a la Recerca Biomèdica, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona
Iris Pasternack
University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital
Jean-Blaise Wasserfallen
Health Technology Assessment Unit, Medical Directorate, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois
Americo Cicchetti
Graduate School of Health Economics and Management, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Marco Marchetti
University Hospital “A. Gemelli“
Kristian Kidholm
Center for Innovative Medical Technologies, Odense University Hospital
Helene Arentz-Hansen
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
Magdalene Rosenmöller
Center for Research in Healthcare Innovation Management, IESE Business School
Claudia Wild
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
Rabia Kahveci
Health Technology Assessment Unit, Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital
Margus Ulst
Tartu University Hospital


Objectives: Health technology assessment (HTA) carried out for policy decision making has well-established principles unlike hospital-based HTA (HB-HTA), which differs from the former in the context characteristics and ways of operation. This study proposes principles for good practices in HB-HTA units.

Methods: A framework for good practice criteria was built inspired by the EFQM excellence business model and information from six literature reviews, 107 face-to-face interviews, forty case studies, large-scale survey, focus group, Delphi survey, as well as local and international validation. In total, 385 people from twenty countries have participated in defining the principles for good practices in HB-HTA units.

Results: Fifteen guiding principles for good practices in HB-HTA units are grouped in four dimensions. Dimension 1 deals with principles of the assessment process aimed at providing contextualized information for hospital decision makers. Dimension 2 describes leadership, strategy and partnerships of HB-HTA units which govern and facilitate the assessment process. Dimension 3 focuses on adequate resources that ensure the operation of HB-HTA units. Dimension 4 deals with measuring the short- and long-term impact of the overall performance of HB-HTA units. Finally, nine core guiding principles were selected as essential requirements for HB-HTA units based on the expertise of the HB-HTA units participating in the project.

Conclusions: Guiding principles for good practices set up a benchmark for HB-HTA because they represent the ideal performance of HB-HTA units; nevertheless, when performing HTA at hospital level, context also matters; therefore, they should be adapted to ensure their applicability in the local context.

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.)



1. McGregor, M. What decision-makers want and what they have been getting. Value Health. 2006;9:181185.Google Scholar
2. Cicchetti, A, Marchetti, M, Bidino, R, Corio, M. Hospital based health technology assessment world-wide survey. Hospital based health technology assessment Sub-Interest Group; 2008;41 (accessed January 18, 2016).Google Scholar
3. Sampietro-Colom, L, Morilla-Bachs, I, Gutierrez-Moreno, S, Gallo, P. Development and test of a decision support tool for hospital health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:460465.Google Scholar
4. Kidholm, K, Ølholm, A, Birk-Olsen, M, et al. An interview study in nine European countries. Health Policy (New York) [Internet]. Elsevier Ireland Ltd; 2015; (accessed January 18, 2016).Google Scholar
5. Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jönsson, B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244258; discussion 362–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Vallejo, P, Saura, RM, Sunol, R, et al. A proposed adaptation of the EFQM fundamental concepts of excellence to health care based on the PATH framework. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006;18:327335.Google Scholar
7. Rosenmöller, M, Sampietro-Colom, L, Farré, M, et al. D 4.1 Review of best practices on undertaking and using HTA at Hospital level and description of European policies affecting Hospital based HTA. 2013. Confidential deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018).Google Scholar
8. AdHopHTA (Adopting hospital-based Health Technology Assessment in EU) research project, funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (Grant Agreement 305018) [Internet]. 2012–2015 [cited 2015 Jun 29]. (accessed June 29, 2015).Google Scholar
9. AdHopHTA partners. The AdHopHTA toolkit: A toolkit for hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA); Public deliverable, The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018); 2015 [cited 2015 Sep 29]. (accessed June 29, 2015).Google Scholar
10. Lafortune, L, Farand, L, Mondou, I, Sicotte, C, Battista, R. Assessing the performance of health technology assessment organizations: A framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:7686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Goodman, C. Toward international good practices in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:169170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Gagnon, M-P, Abdeljelil, AB, Desmartis, M, et al. Opportunities to promote efficiency in hospital decision-making through the use of health technology assessment. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) – Research Reports, CHSRF series of reports on cost drivers and health system efficiency. Ottawa, CHSRF; 2011:128.Google Scholar
13. Lavis, JN, Oxman, AD, Moynihan, R, Paulsen, EJ. Evidence-informed health policy 1 - synthesis of findings from a multi-method study of organizations that support the use of research evidence. Implement Sci. 2008;3:53.Google Scholar
14. Battista, RN. Expanding the scientific basis of health technology assessment: A research agenda for the next decade. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:275280; discussion 280–282.Google Scholar
15. McGregor, M, Brophy, JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21;263267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model ® version 2.1 [updated April 22, 2015]. (accessed July 14, 2015).Google Scholar
17. Lampe, K, Mäkelä, M. (editors). EUnetHTA core model for medical and surgical interventions. 1.0R, 2008. (accessed November 3, 2014).Google Scholar
18. Lampe, K, Pasternack, I, (editors). EUnetHTA. HTA core model for diagnostic technologies. 1.0R, 2008. (accessed September 23, 2014).Google Scholar
19. Hailey, D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment: A checklist for HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19;17.Google Scholar
20. Ølholm, AM, Kidholm, K, Birk-Olsen, M, et al. D2.2: Quality assessment of hospital-based HTA products. 2014, Confidential deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018).Google Scholar
21. Stafinski, T, Topfer, L-A, Zakariasen, K, Menon, D. The role of surgeons in identifying emerging technologies for health technology assessment. Can J Surg. 2010;53:8692.Google Scholar
22. Gallego, G, van Gool, K, Kelleher, D. Resource allocation and health technology assessment in Australia: Views from the local level. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:134140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Haselkorn, A, Rosenstein, AH, Rao, AK, Van Zuiden, M, Coye, MJ. New technology planning and approval: Critical factors for success 13. Am J Med Qual. 2007;22:164169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Moharra, M, Espallargues, M, Kubesch, N, et al. Systems to support health technology assessment (HTA) in member states of the European Union with limited institutionalization of HTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):7583.Google Scholar
25. Poulin, P, Austen, L, Kortbeek, JB, Lafrenière, R. New technologies and surgical innovation: Five years of a local health technology assessment program in a surgical department. Surg Innov. 2012;19:187–99.Google Scholar
26. Juzwishin, D, Olmstead, D, Menon, D. Hospital-based technology assessment programmes: Two Canadian examples. World Hosp Health Serv. 1996;32:29.Google ScholarPubMed
27. Golan, O, Hansen, P, Kaplan, G, Tal, O. Health technology prioritization: Which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights? Health Policy (New York). 2011;102:126135.Google Scholar
28. Rubinstein, A, Pichon-Riviere, A, Augustovski, F. Development and implementation of health technology assessment in Argentina: Two steps forward and one step back. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):260269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Elshaug, AG, et al. Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4;23.Google Scholar
30. Arentz-Hansen, H, Bjørnebek Frønsdal, K, Fure, B, et al. D3.1: Bridging Hospital HTA and National/Regional HTA Activities. 2013, Confidential Deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018).Google Scholar
31. Pasternak, I, Halmesmäki, E, Roine, R, et al. D3.2: Portfolio of patterns of collaboration between hospital-based HTA and national/regional HTA agencies. 2014, Confidential Deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018).Google Scholar
32. Mäkelä, M, Roine, RP. Health technology assessment in Finland. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 (Suppl 1):102107.Google Scholar
33. Granados, A, Jonsson, E, Banta, HD, et al. EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup Report on Dissemination and Impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:220286.Google Scholar
34. Bennie, M, Dear, J, Hems, S, et al. An investigation into the effect of advice from the Scottish Medicines Consortium on the use of medicines in Scotland's Health Service. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;71:283288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Neumann, PJ, Drummond, MF, Jönsson, B, et al. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:7178.Google ScholarPubMed
36. [No authors listed]. Health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1);10.Google Scholar
37. Attieh, R, Gagnon, M-P. Implementation of local/hospital-based health technology assessment initiatives in low- and middle-income countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:445451.Google Scholar
38. Andradas, E, Blasco, J-A, Valentín, B, López-Pedraza, M-J, Gracia, F-J. Defining products for a new health technology assessment agency in Madrid, Spain: A survey of decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:6069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Luce, BR, Brown, RE. The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third-party payers in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995;11:7992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Sampietro-Colom supplementary material

List of acknowledgments

Download Sampietro-Colom supplementary material(File)
File 30 KB
Supplementary material: File

Sampietro-Colom supplementary material

Table S2

Download Sampietro-Colom supplementary material(File)
File 20 KB