Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T14:52:05.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A MODEL FOR HTA PRIORITY SETTING: EXPERIENCE IN LITHUANIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2013

Danguole Jankauskiene  and
Gintare Petronyte
Danguole Jankauskiene
Affiliation:
Mykolas Romeris University
Gintare Petronyte
Affiliation:
Mykolas Romeris University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: To promote the further development of HTA, this study aims to design a model for HTA priority setting, which would address national needs for a country with little experience in the field of HTA, and assess its feasibility for the health system.

Methods: Literature search and review, as well as qualitative research have been used in the design and testing of the model for HTA priority setting. To test the model and the methodology, a three-round Delphi study was conducted in 2011 in the form of an electronic questionnaire, which was distributed to the panel of eleven national experts. The panel was composed of experts representing various fields of the health care sector: policy-makers, health care service professionals and academics, with diverse professional roles.

Results: The designed model consists of four stages: (i) selection of experts for the panel, (ii) indication and selection of health policy topics, (iii) identification of health technologies, and (iv) priority setting. Three rounds of the Delphi study were performed to test the model and reach expert consensus on a list of health technologies for assessment, including pharmaceuticals, vaccines, medical devices, diagnostic methods, public health interventions, organizational systems, etc.

Conclusions: Based on the Delphi technique as a method for consensus building, the model for HTA priority setting was developed for Lithuania; however, it could also be used for other countries with little experience in the field of HTA.

Keywords

health technologiespriority settinghealth systemDelphi technique
Type
Policies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 450 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.Sabik, LM, Lie, RK. Priority setting in health care: Lessons from the experiences of eight countries. Int J Equity Health. 2008;7:1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Jankauskiene, D.Development of health technology assessment in Lithuania. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):140–142.Google Scholar
3.Republic of Lithuania Law on Health System. Official Gazette 1994; No. 63-1231.Google Scholar
4.Hsu, CC, Sandford, BA. The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12:4.Google Scholar
5.Henshall, C, Oortwijn, W, Stevens, A, et al.Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:144–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Schmidt, RC. Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decis Sci. 1997;28:763–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Noorani, HZ, Husereau, DR, Boudreau, R, Skidmore, B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;3:310–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment. The prioritisation of evaluation topics of health: Report. Donostia-San Sebastian: Osteba; 1996.Google Scholar
9.Carlsson, P.Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:44–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Oortwijn, WJ, Vondeling, H, van Barneveld, T, et al.Priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: Principles and practice. Health Policy. 2002;62:227–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Stevens, A, Milne, R. Health technology assessment in England and Wales. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:11–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Banta, HD, Hatziandreu, E, Dauben, HP, et al.Health promotion and disease prevention as a complement to community health indicators. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:238–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Holland, WW. Health technology assessment and public health: A commentary. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Barbieri, M, Drummond, M. The use of HTA in decision-making. Report to ECHTA/ECAHI Working Group. York: University of York; 2002.Google Scholar
15.Oliver, E, Mossiales, E, Robinson, R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Innvaer, S, Vist, G. Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers perceptions of their use of evidence: A systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:239–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Gagnon, MP, Desmartis, M, Lepage-Savary, D, et al.Introducing patients’ and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:31–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Lithuanian Health System Development Outline for 2011–2020 year. Official Gazette 2011; No.73–3498.Google Scholar