Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T22:23:59.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Development of Health Care Technology Assessment: An International Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Renaldo N. Battista  and
Matthew J. Hodge
Renaldo N. Battista
Affiliation:
Montreal General Hospital
Matthew J. Hodge
Affiliation:
McGill University and Montreal General Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstarct

We consider the nature of technology assessment and then briefly summarize technology assessment activities in five countries: Canada, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Drawing from these examples, we then identify determinants of the emergence and impact of technology assessment.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Spring 1995 , pp. 286 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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.Armogathe, J. F.Pour le développement de I'évaluation medicale. Rapport au Ministre de la Solidarité, de la Santé et de la Protection Sociale. Paris: La documentation française, avril 1989.Google Scholar
2.Assessing the effects of health technologies. Paper prepared by the Advisory Group on Health Technology Assessment for the Director of Research and Development, London, 01 20, 1992.Google Scholar
3.Banta, H. D., Behney, C. J., & Willems, J. S.Toward rational technology in medicine: Considerations for health policy. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1981.Google Scholar
4.Banta, H. D.Health activities of the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment. Journal of Medical Engineering and Technology 1983, 7, 173.Google Scholar
5.Banta, H. D. Pushing the limits: Technology assessment in health care —Text of an inaugural address given at the State University Limburg in Maastricht, The Netherlands, 05 17, 1990.Google Scholar
6.Barer, M. L., & Evans, R. G. The meeting of the twain: Managing health care capital, capacity and costs in Canada. In Gelijns, A. C. (ed.), Technology and health care in an era of limits. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992, 97–119.Google Scholar
7.Battista, R. N.Health care technology assessment: Linking science and policy-making [editorial]. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1992, 146, 461–62.Google Scholar
8.Battista, R. N., Feeny, D. H., & Hodge, M. J.Evaluation of the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1995, 11, 102–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Battista, R. N., & Fletcher, S. W.Making recommendations on preventive practices: Methodological issues. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 1988, 4(suppl.), 53–67.Google Scholar
10.Blum, C., Cagan, G., & Razer, J. Lamaitrise du développement des technologies biomédicales en France. Gestions Hospitalières 1984, 235 (avril).Google Scholar
11.British Columbia Office of Health Technology Assessment. Newsletter no. 1, 10 1991.Google Scholar
12.Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Technology Brief 5.2, 03 1993.Google Scholar
13.Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The periodic health examination. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1979, 121, 1193–254.Google Scholar
14.Casteret, A-M, L'Affaire du sang. Editions La Découverte, 1992.Google Scholar
15.CCOHTA looks ahead: CCOHTA update. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Issue no. 10, Spring 1992.Google Scholar
16.Cochrane, A. L. Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflections on health services. The Rock Carling Fellowship, 1971. The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, Great Britain, 1972, 1989.Google Scholar
17.Conseil d’évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec. Mandate and organization. Montreal: Conseil d'evaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec, 1989.Google Scholar
18.Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la sante du Québec. Screening for breast cancer in Quebec: Estimates of health effects and of costs. Montreal: Conseil d’évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec, 1990.Google Scholar
19.Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la santé du Québec. Transplantation in Quebec. Montreal: Conseil d'évaluation des technologies de la sante du Québec, 1992.Google Scholar
20.Department of Health, Research and Development Division. Research for health: A research and development strategy for the NHS. London: National Health Service, 1991.Google Scholar
21.Eddy, D. M., Hasselblad, V., & Shachter, R. An introduction to a Bayesian method for meta-analysis: The confidence profile method. In Gelijns, A. C. (ed.), Modern methods of clinical investigation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990, 101–16.Google Scholar
22.Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., et al. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. American Journal of Public Health, 1984, 74, 979–83.Google Scholar
23.Fuchs, V. R., & Garber, A. M.The new technology assessment. New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 323, 673–77.Google Scholar
24.Government Committee on Choices in Health Care. Choices in health care. Rijswijk, The Netherlands: Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs, 1992.Google Scholar
25.Groot, L. M. J. Medical technology in the health care system of the Netherlands. In Banta, H. D. & Kemp, K. B. (eds.), The management of health care technology in nine countries. New York: Springer, 1982.Google Scholar
26.Jacob, R., & Battista, R. N.Assessing technology assessment: Early results of the Quebec experience. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1993, 9, 564–72.Google Scholar
27.Kelly, J. T., & Swartwout, J. E.Development of practice parameters by physician organizations. Quality Review Bulletin, 1990, 16, 54–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Klazinga, N. S., Casparie, A. F., & van Everdingen, J. J. E. Profile of the consensus development program in the Netherlands: National Organization for Quality Assurance in Hospitals (CBO). In Institute of Medicine. Improving consensus development for health technology assessment: An international perspective. Washington, DC: National Academ Press, 1990.Google Scholar
29.L’Abbé, K. A., Detsky, A. S., & O’Rourke, K.Meta-analysis in clinical research. Annals of Internal Medicine, 1987, 107, 224–33.Google Scholar
30.Lindblom, C. E.The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 1959, 19 (Spring), 79–88.Google Scholar
31.McGlynn, E. A., Kosecoff, J., & Brook, R. H.Format and conduct of consensus development conferences: Multination comparison. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 450–69.Google Scholar
32.Miller, A. B., Baines, C. J., To, T., & Wall, C.Canadian National Breast Screening Study: I. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1992, 147, 1459–76.Google Scholar
33.Miller, A. B., Baines, C. J., To, T., & Wall, C.Canadian National Breast Screening Study: II. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1992, 147, 1477–88.Google Scholar
34.Morris, L. C. Introduction to the Blue Cross and Blue Shield association guidelines. In Sox, H. C. (ed.), Common diagnostic tests. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians, 1987, 331–33.Google Scholar
35.National Cancer Institute. National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Consensus Development Meeting on Breast Cancer Screening: Issues and recommendations. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 1978, 60, 1519–21.Google Scholar
36.Pauker, S. G.Decision analysis as a synthetic tool for achieving consensus in technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1986, 2, 83–97.Google Scholar
37.Perry, S.The National Center for Health Care Technology. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1981, 245, 2510.Google Scholar
38.Perry, S., & Kalberer, J. T.The NIH consensus development program and the assessment of health care technologies. New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, 303, 169–72.Google Scholar
39. Rapport de mission de Monsieur le Professeur Emile Papiernik à Monsieur Edmond Hervé, Secrétaire d'État charge de la Santé. Propositions pour le développement de l'evaluation des technologies et de pratiques médicates. Paris, 1985.Google Scholar
40.Sacks, H. S., Berrier, J., Reitman, D., et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 1987, 316, 450–55.Google Scholar
41.Schieber, G. J., Poullier, J. P., & Greenwald, L. M.Health spending, delivery, and outcomes in OECD countries. Health Affairs, 1993, 12, 120–9.Google Scholar
42.Shapiro, S., Venet, W., Strax, P., et al. Periodic screening for breast cancer. In The health insurance plan project and its sequelae, 1963–1986. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
43. U.S. Congress. PL 101–239, 1989.Google Scholar
44.White, L. J., & Ball, J. R.The clinical efficacy assessment project of the American College of Physicians. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 169–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Woolf, S. H., Battista, R. N., Anderson, G. M., et al. Assessing the clinical effectiveness of preventive maneuvers: Analytic principles and systematic methods in reviewing evidence and developing clinical practice recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1990, 43, 891–905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed