Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Mirjana Huić (a1), Anna Nachtnebel (a2), Ingrid Zechmeister (a2), Iris Pasternak (a3) and Claudia Wild (a2)...

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.

Copyright

References

Hide All
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.
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.
3.Kristensen, FB. Development of European HTA: from Vision to EUnetHTA. Michael. 2012;9:147156.
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.
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.
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.
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.
8.Kristensen, FB, Gerhardus, A. Health technology assessments: what do differing conclusions tell us? BMJ. 2010;341:c5236
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
17.Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Levels of Evidence 2009. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025 (accessed February 10, 2011).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
27.The AGREE Collaboration. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. www.agreecollaboration.org. (accessed December 18, 2011).
28.Sorenson, C.The role of HTA in coverage and pricing decision: A cross-country comparison. Euro Observer. 2009;11:112.
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.

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

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

  • Mirjana Huić (a1), Anna Nachtnebel (a2), Ingrid Zechmeister (a2), Iris Pasternak (a3) and Claudia Wild (a2)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.