Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T20:09:28.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

SUCCESS FACTORS FOR INTERNATIONAL HTA PROJECTS: EVALUATING EUnetHTA JOINT ACTION AS AN EXEMPLAR

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2015

Eleanor Woodford Guegan
Affiliation:
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evaluation Studies and Trials Co-ordinating Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Andrew Cook
Affiliation:
Consultant in Public Health Medicine and Fellow in Health Technology Assessment, andrewc@soton.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives: Evaluation is essential for the management of international projects or networks in health technology assessment (HTA). It extends beyond the normal process of project management by incorporating qualitative dimensions and provides information about a project's effectiveness and achievements. This article aimed to identify the factors that are important for the success of international HTA projects. The European network for Health Technology Assessment Joint Action (EUnetHTA JA) is presented as an exemplar.

Methods: Methods for the evaluation of international HTA projects include interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, observations and documentary review, and the key points of these approaches have been summarized. The impact and effectiveness of the EUnetHTA JA was evaluated by questionnaires of project participants and external stakeholders, and by documentary review.

Results: The response rate for the three annual questionnaires sent to project participants ranged from 86 percent to 88 percent and for external stakeholders ranged from 65 percent to 88 percent. Key factors for project success included production of deliverables according to the workplan, achievement of objectives, added value generated, effective communication, involvement of external stakeholders, workstream management and progress from the preceding EUnetHTA 2006–2008 project.

Conclusions: The experience of this project can inform the evaluation of future international HTA collaborations, such as the EUnetHTA 2nd Joint Action and HTAsiaLink. A high response rate was achieved to the self-completion questionnaires and the strategy followed is recommended for evaluation of international HTA projects. Future assessments of international HTA projects should strive to measure outcomes and impact, not just outputs and process.

Type
Theme Submissions
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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. Lientz, BP, Rea, KP. International project management. USA: Elsevier Science; 2003.Google Scholar
2. Banta, D. Introduction to the EUR-ASSESS Report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:133143.Google Scholar
3. Banta, D, Oortwijn, W. Health technology assessment and health care in the European Union. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:626635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Jonsson, E, Banta, D. Executive summary of the ECHTA/ECAHI project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:213217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Borlum Kristensen, F, Makela, M, Allgurin Neikter, S, et al. Planning, development and implementation of a sustainable European network for Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):107116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. INAHTA. Global Networking for Effective Healthcare. http://www.inahta.org (accessed October 2014).Google Scholar
7. HTAsiaLink. http://htasialink.org/about/history.php (accessed October 2014).Google Scholar
8. Weiss, CH. Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc; 1998 Google Scholar
9. EUnetHTA. EUnetHTA, Joint Action 1 (2010–2012). http://www.eunethta.eu/activities/eunethta-joint-action-2010-12/eunethta-joint-action-2010-12. (accessed October 2014).Google Scholar
10. Britten, N. Qualitative research: Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ. 1995;311:251253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Kitzinger, J. Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995;311:299302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Lavrakas, PJ. Encyclopedia of survey research methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Gillham, B. Developing a questionnaire. London: Continuum; 2000.Google Scholar
14. Hughes, J, Nieuwenhuis, L. A project manager's guide to evaluation. Evaluate Europe Handbook Series. Bremen: ITB Institute Technology and Education; 2005.Google Scholar
15. Mays, N, Pope, C. Qualitative research: Observational methods in health care settings. BMJ. 1995;311:182184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Koster, K. International project management. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Turner, R, Zolin, R. Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames. Project Management Journal. 2012;43:8799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. 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. Official Journal of the European Union, 2011. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:088:0045:65:EN:PDF (accessed October 2014).Google Scholar
20. Baskerville, R, Nanhakumar, J. Activating and perpetuating virtual teams: Now that we’re mobile, where do we go? IEEE Trans Prof Commun. 2007;50:1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2009 23 02. Description of the action. The European Commission (Technical Annex). www.eunethta.eu/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/EUnetHTA%20JA1%20Technical%20Annex.pdf, 2009 (accessed October 2014).Google Scholar
22. Edwards, P, Roberts, I, Clarke, M, et al. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: Systematic review. BMJ. 2002;324:1183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Varvasovszky, Z, Brugha, R. How to do (or not to do). A Stakeholder analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2000;15:338345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar