Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:44:53.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AGING AND HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2018

Don Juzwishin ,
Heather McNeil ,
Jeonghoon Ahn ,
Yingyao Chen ,
Americo Cicchetti ,
Naoto Kume ,
Laura Brooks  and
Paul Stolee
Don Juzwishin
Affiliation:
Health Technology Assessment and Innovation
Heather McNeil
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo; Wilfrid Laurier University
Jeonghoon Ahn
Affiliation:
Ewha Womans University
Yingyao Chen
Affiliation:
School of Public Health, Fudan University
Americo Cicchetti
Affiliation:
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Naoto Kume
Affiliation:
Kyoto University
Laura Brooks
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo
Paul Stolee
Affiliation:
University of Waterloostolee@uwaterloo.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

With the increase in technologies to support an aging population, health technology assessment (HTA) of aging-related technologies warrants special consideration. At Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) 2016 and HTAi 2017, an international panel explored interests in HTA focused on aging.

Methods:

Panelists from five countries shared the state of aging and HTA in their countries. Opportunities were provided for participants to discuss and rate the themes identified by the panelists.

Results:

In 2016, the highest ranked themes were: (i) identifying unmet needs of older adults that could be met by technology—how can HTA help?; (ii) differences in assessment of aging-related technologies—what is the scope?; and (iii) involvement of older adults and caregivers. These themes became the starting point for discussion in 2017, for which the highest ranked themes were: (i) identification of challenges in HTA and aging; and (ii) approaches to advancing effectiveness of HTA for aging.

Conclusion:

These discussions allowed for examination of future directions for HTA and aging: engagement of older adults to inform the agenda of HTA and the broader public policy enterprise; a systems approach to thinking about needs of older persons should support the type and level of care desired by the individual rather than the health institutions, and HTA should reflect these desires when evaluating technological aides; and there is potential for health information systems and “big data” to support HTA activities that assess usability of technologies for older adults. We hope to build on the momentum of this community to continue exploring opportunities for aging and HTA.

Keywords

Technology AssessmentHealthy agingHealthcare systemsEvidence-based health care
Type
Article Commentary
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , 2018 , pp. 442 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

This work was supported in part by the AGE-WELL (Aging Gracefully across Environments using technology to support Wellness, Engagement and Long Life) Network, which is funded by the Government of Canada's Networks of Centers of Excellence (NCE) Program. We are grateful for the input of self-selected participants at the 2016 and 2017 HTAi Conferences.

References

REFERENCES

1.Goodman, C. HTA 101: Introduction to health technology assessment transcript. National Information Centre on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHRS). U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2012. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/htawebinars/HTA_101_Transcript.html (accessed September 26, 2018).Google Scholar
2.Anderson, M, Perrin, A. 2. Barriers to adoption and attitudes towards technology. In: Tech adoption climbs among older adults. 2017. http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/05/17/barriers-to-adoption-and-attitudes-towards-technology/ (accessed September 26, 2018).Google Scholar
3.Plsek, PE, Greenhalgh, T. Complexity science: The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ. 2001;323:625–628.Google Scholar
4.Ferrucci, L, Guralnik, JM, Studenski, S, et al. Designing randomized, controlled trials aimed at preventing or delaying functional decline and disability in frail, older persons: A consensus report. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52:625–634. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52174.x.Google Scholar
5.Ferris, SH. Clinical trials in AD: Are current formats and outcome measures adequate?. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Discord. 2002;16:S13–S17. https://journals.lww.com/alzheimerjournal/Abstract/2002/00001/Clinical_Trials_in_AD__Are_Current_Formats_and.3.aspx (accessed September 26, 2018).Google Scholar
6.HITLAB. Caregivers & technology: What they want and need. 2016. https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/home-and-family/personal-technology/2016/04/Caregivers-and-Technology-AARP.pdf (accessed September 26, 2018).Google Scholar
7.AGE-WELL. Health systems, practice, policy and regulatory issues. 2018. http://agewell-nce.ca/research/research-themes-and-projects/workpackage-7 (accessed September 26, 2018).Google Scholar
8.Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Transforming how we manage health technologies in support of better health, better patient experience, and better value. 2018. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/corporate/planning_documents/CADTH_2018-2021_Strategic_Plan.pdf (accessed September 26, 2018).Google Scholar
9.Beazley, H, Ennew, J. Participatory methods and approaches: Tackling the two tyrannies. Doing Developmental Research. 2006;189–199. https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=17kgMwcGK5gC&oi=fnd&pg=PT202&dq=participatory+methods+data+collection&ots=VXNfwKJDYC&sig=TM1jr8lLSyjYGLiWLJCayFOCXLk#v=onepage&q=participatory%20methods%20data%20collection&f=false (accessed September 26, 2018).Google Scholar
10.Braun, V, Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101. doi:https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.Google Scholar
11.Bowman-Busato, J. Patient engagement in health technology assessment (HTA). Pharm Policy Law. 2011;13:193–201. doi:10.3233/PPL-2011-0324.Google Scholar
12.Whitty, JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health. 2013;16:155–163. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.09.011.Google Scholar
13.Facey, K, Boivin, A, Gracia, J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334–340. doi:10.1017/S0266462310000395.Google Scholar
14.Bridges, JF, Jones, C. Patient-based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:30–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462307051549.Google Scholar
15.Dang, A, Shetye, Angle V. Utilizing patient registries as health technology assessment (HTA) tool. Syst Rev Pharm. 2015;6:5–8. doi:10.5530/srp.2015.1.2.Google Scholar
16.Garrison, LP, Neuman, PJ, Erickson, P, Marshall, D, Mullins, D. Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: The ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. Value Health. 2007;10:326–335. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00186.x.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Juzwishin et al. supplementary material

Juzwishin et al. supplementary material 1

Download Juzwishin et al. supplementary material(File)
File 17.4 KB