Skip to main content
×
Home

Assessing the impact of England's National Health Service R&D Health Technology Assessment program using the “payback” approach

  • James Raftery (a1), Stephen Hanney (a2), Colin Green (a3) and Martin Buxton (a2)
Abstract

Objectives: This study assesses the impact of the English National Health Service (NHS) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program using the “payback” framework.

Methods: A survey of lead investigators of all research projects funded by the HTA program 1993–2003 supplemented by more detailed case studies of sixteen projects.

Results: Of 204 eligible projects, replies were received from 133 or 65 percent. The mean number of peer-reviewed publications per project was 2.9. Seventy-three percent of projects claimed to have had had an impact on policy and 42 percent on behavior. Technology Assessment Reports for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) had fewer than average publications but greater impact on policy. Half of all projects went on to secure further funding. The case studies confirmed the survey findings and indicated factors associated with impact.

Conclusions: The HTA program performed relatively well in terms of “payback.” Facilitating factors included the program's emphasis on topics that matter to the NHS, rigorous methods and the existence of “policy customers” such as NICE.

Copyright
References
Hide All
1. Academy Medical Sciences/MRC/Welcome Trust. Medical research: Assessing the benefits to society. London: Academy Medical Sciences; 2006
2. American Gastroenterologist Association. American Gastroenterologist Association medical position statement: Evaluation of dyspepsia. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:17531755.
3. Black N. Evidence based policy: Proceed with care. BMJ. 2001;323;275279.
4. Buxton M, Hanney S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1:3543.
5. Department of Health. National service framework for older people. London: Department of Health; 2001. http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/07/12/83/04071283.pdf.
6. Duncan PW, Zorowitz R, Bates B, et al. Management of adult rehabilitation care: A clinical practice guideline. Stroke. 2005;36:e100e143.
7. Ferguson B, Kelly P, Georgiou A, et al. Assessing payback from NHS reactive research programmes. J Manag Med. 2000;14:2536.
8. Hanney S, Buxton M, Green C, Coulson D, Raftery J. An assessment of the impact of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:iiiiv, ix-xi, 1-180. http://www.ncchta.org/fullmono/mon1153.pdf.
9. Hanney S, Gonzalez-Block M, Buxton M, Kogan M. The utilisation of health research in policy-making: Concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst. 2003;1:2.
10. Hanney S, Grant J, Wooding S, Buxtom MJ. Proposed methods for reviewing the outcomes of research: The impact of funding by the UK's ‘Arthritis Research Campaign’. Health Res Policy Syst. 2004;2:4.
11. Hanney S, Soper B, Buxton M. Evaluation of the NHS R&D Methods Programme. HERG Report No.29. Uxbridge: Brunel University; 2003.
12. Jacob R, Battista R. Assessing technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1993;9:564572.
13. Jacob R, McGregor M. Assessing the impact of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:6880.
14. Johnston SC, Rootenberg JD, Katrak S, Smith WS, Elkins JS. Effects of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs. Lancet. 2006;367:13191327.
15. Kalra L, Evans A, Perez I, et al. Alternative strategies for stroke care: A prospective randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2000;356:894899.
16. Kalra L, Evans A, Perez I, et al. A randomised controlled comparison of alternative strategies for stroke care. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:iiiiv, 1–79.
17. Kingwell BA, Anderson GP, Duckett SJ, et al. Evaluation of NHMRC funded research completed in 1992, 1997 and 2003: Gains in knowledge, health and wealth. Med J Aust. 2006;184:282286.
18. Kogan M, Henkel M, Hanney S. Government and research: Thirty years of evolution. 2nd ed. Dortrecht: Springer; 2003.
19. Kwan P, Johnston J, Fung AY, et al. A systematic evaluation of payback of publicly funded health and health services research in Hong Kong. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:121.
20. Shah S, Ward JE. Outcomes from NHMRC public health research project grants awarded in 1993. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001;25:556560.
21. Stryer D, Tunis S, Hubbard H, Clancy C. The outcomes of outcomes and effectiveness research: Impacts and lessons from the first decade. Health Serv Res. 2000;35 (pt 1):977993.
22. Ward E, King M, Lloyd M, et al. Randomised controlled trial of nondirective counselling, cognative-behaviour therapy and usual general practitioner care for patients with depression. I: Clinical effectiveness. BMJ. 2000;321:13831388.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 5
Total number of PDF views: 30 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 303 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.