Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 16
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Herrmann, Kirsten H. Perleth, Matthias and Rogowski, Wolf 2016. Business Planning im Gesundheitswesen.

    Joosten, S.E.P. Retèl, V.P. Coupé, V.M.H. van den Heuvel, M.M. and van Harten, W.H. 2016. Scenario drafting for early technology assessment of next generation sequencing in clinical oncology. BMC Cancer, Vol. 16, Issue. 1,

    Abrishami, Payam Boer, Albert and Horstman, Klasien 2015. How can we assess the value of complex medical innovations in practice?. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, Vol. 15, Issue. 3, p. 369.

    Craig, Joyce A. Carr, Louise Hutton, John Glanville, Julie Iglesias, Cynthia P. and Sims, Andrew J. 2015. A Review of the Economic Tools for Assessing New Medical Devices. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Vol. 13, Issue. 1, p. 15.

    Le Roux, Ronan 2015. A Matter of Accuracy. Nanobiochips in Diagnostics and in Research: Ethical Issues as Value Trade-Offs. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 21, Issue. 2, p. 343.

    Assasi, Nazila Schwartz, Lisa Tarride, Jean-Eric Campbell, Kaitryn and Goeree, Ron 2014. Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: a systematic review. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, Vol. 14, Issue. 2, p. 203.

    Lal, Jonathan A Morré, Servaas A and Brand, Angela 2014. The overarching framework of translation and integration into healthcare: a case for the LAL model. Personalized Medicine, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, p. 41.

    Fleeman, Nigel Payne, Katherine Newman, William G Howell, Sacha J Boland, Angela Oyee, James Saborido, Carlos Martin Santander, Ana Fernández and Dickson, Rumona 2013. Are health technology assessments of pharmacogenetic tests feasible? A case study ofCYP2D6testing in the treatment of breast cancer with tamoxifen. Personalized Medicine, Vol. 10, Issue. 6, p. 601.

    Lal, Jonathan A Vaidya, Anil Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, Iñaki Dauben, Hans-Peter and Brand, Angela 2013. The Learning-Adapting-Leveling model: from theory to hypothesis of steps for implementation of basic genome-based evidence in personalized medicine. Personalized Medicine, Vol. 10, Issue. 7, p. 683.

    Özdemir, Vural Joly, Yann Kirby, Emily Avard, Denise and Knoppers, Bartha M. 2013. Pharmacogenomics.

    Stamenkovic, Sophie Solesse, Anne Zanetti, Laura Zagury, Pascale and Vray, Muriel 2012. Guide de la Haute autorité de santé (HAS) : les études post-inscription sur les technologies de santé (médicaments, dispositifs médicaux et actes) : principes et méthodes. Thérapie, Vol. 67, Issue. 5, p. 409.

    Arellano, Luis E. Willett, Jeffrey M. and Borry, Pascal 2011. International survey on attitudes toward ethics in health technology assessment: An exploratory study. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 27, Issue. 01, p. 50.

    Gulmans, Jitske Vollenbroek-Hutten, Miriam MR van Gemert-Pijnen, Lisette JEWC and van Harten, Wim H 2011. Determinants of use and non-use of a web-based communication system in cerebral palsy care: evaluating the association between professionals' system use and their a priori expectancies and background. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Vol. 11, Issue. 1,

    Ozdemir, Vural Faraj, Samer A. and Knoppers, Bartha M. 2011. Steering Vaccinomics Innovations with Anticipatory Governance and Participatory Foresight. OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, Vol. 15, Issue. 9, p. 637.

    Ploem, Martine Corrette Retèl, Valesca P Linn, Sabine C van Boven, Hester H Schmidt, Marjanka K de Jong, Jean Philippe Gevers, Joseph KM and van Harten, Wim H 2010. Tumour tissue: who is in control?. The Lancet Oncology, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, p. 9.

    Retèl, Valesca P. Hummel, Marjan J.M. and van Harten, Wim H. 2009. Review on early technology assessments of nanotechnologies in oncology. Molecular Oncology, Vol. 3, Issue. 5-6, p. 394.

  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 23, Issue 2
  • April 2007, pp. 162-168

Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care

  • Kirsten F. L. Douma (a1), Kim Karsenberg (a1), Marjan J. M. Hummel (a2), Jolien M. Bueno-de-Mesquita (a1) and Wim H. van Harten (a3)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 April 2007

Objectives: Technologies in health care are evolving quickly, with new findings in the area of biotechnological and genetic research being published regularly. A health technology assessment (HTA) is often used to answer the question of whether the new technology should be implemented into clinical practice. International evidence confirms that the results of HTA research sometimes have limited impact on practical implementation and on coverage decisions; the study design is commonly based on the paradigm of stability of both the technology and the environment, which is often not the case. Constructive technology assessment (CTA) was first described in the 1980s. In addition to the traditional HTA elements, this approach also takes into account the technology dynamics by emphasizing sociodynamic processes. With a CTA approach, comprehensive assessment can be combined with an intentional influence in a favorable direction to improve quality.

Methods: In this study, the methodological aspects mainly concerning the diagnostic use of CTA are explained. The methodology will be illustrated using the controlled introduction of a new technology, called microarray analysis, into the clinical practice of breast cancer treatment as a case study. Attention is paid to the operationalization of the phases of development and implementation and the research methods most appropriate for CTA.

Conclusions: In addition to HTA, CTA can be used as a complementary approach, especially in technologies that are introduced in an early stage of development in a controlled way.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

2.M Berg , der Grinten T van , N Klazinga . Technology assessment, priority setting, and appropriate care in Dutch health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004; 20: 3543.

3.E Draborg , D Gyrd-Hansen , PB Poulsen , M. Horder International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005; 21: 8995.

6.M Johri , P Lehoux . The great escape? Prospects for regulating access to technology through health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003; 19: 179193.

9.M Leys . Health technology assessment: The contribution of qualitative research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003; 19: 317329.

10.T Molfenter , D Gustafson , C Kilo , A Bhattacharya , J Olsson . Prospective evaluation of a Bayesian Model to predict organisational change. Health Care Manage Rev. 2005; 30: 270279.

14.JW Schot . Constructive technology assessment and technology dynamics: The case of clean technologies. Sci Technol Human Values. 1992; 17: 3656.

15.JW Schot , A Rip . The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1996; 54: 251268.

21.Veer LJ van't , H Dai , de Vijver MJ van , Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002; 415: 530536.

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? *