Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 17
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Wortley, Sally Tong, Allison and Howard, Kirsten 2016. Preferences for engagement in health technology assessment decision-making: a nominal group technique with members of the public. BMJ Open, Vol. 6, Issue. 2, p. e010265.


    Adunlin, Georges Diaby, Vakaramoko and Xiao, Hong 2015. Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care: a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Health Expectations, Vol. 18, Issue. 6, p. 1894.


    2015. Health Technology Assessment.


    Whear, Rebecca Thompson-Coon, Jo Boddy, Kate Papworth, Helen Frier, Julie and Stein, Ken 2015. Establishing local priorities for a health research agenda. Health Expectations, Vol. 18, Issue. 1, p. 8.


    Thokala, Praveen and Duenas, Alejandra 2012. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis for Health Technology Assessment. Value in Health, Vol. 15, Issue. 8, p. 1172.


    Goeree, Ron and Diaby, Vakaramoko 2013. Introduction to health economics and decision-making: Is economics relevant for the frontline clinician?. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology, Vol. 27, Issue. 6, p. 831.


    Kim, Hee Sun Lee, Jisu and Yoo, Bit-Na 2016. Association between research topics and disease burden in health technology assessment. Journal of the Korean Medical Association, Vol. 59, Issue. 7, p. 536.


    Turner, Sheila Davidson, Peter Stanton, Louise and Cawdeary, Victoria 2014. Features of successful bids for funding of applied health research: a cohort study. Health Research Policy and Systems, Vol. 12, Issue. 1,


    Xie, Feng Bowen, James M Sutherland, Simone C Burke, Natasha Blackhouse, Gord Tarride, Jean-Eric O’Reilly, Daria and Goeree, Ron 2011. Using health technology assessment to support evidence-based decision-making in Canada: an academic perspective. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, Vol. 11, Issue. 5, p. 513.


    Gagnon, Marie-Pierre Candas, Bernard Desmartis, Marie Gagnon, Johanne Roche, Daniel La Rhainds, Marc Coulombe, Martin Dipankui, Mylène Tantchou and Légaré, France 2014. Involving patient in the early stages of health technology assessment (HTA): a study protocol. BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 14, Issue. 1,


    Brainard, Julii Loke, Yoon Salter, Charlotte Koós, Tamás Csizmadia, Péter Makai, Alexandra Gács, Boróka and Szepes, Mária 2016. Healthy ageing in Europe: prioritizing interventions to improve health literacy. BMC Research Notes, Vol. 9, Issue. 1,


    Diaby, Vakaramoko and Goeree, Ron 2014. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: a step-by-step guide. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, Vol. 14, Issue. 1, p. 81.


    Mobinizadeh, Mohammadreza Raeissi, Pouran Nasiripour, Amir Ashkan Olyaeemanesh, Alireza and Tabibi, Seyed Jamaleddin 2016. A model for priority setting of health technology assessment: the experience of AHP-TOPSIS combination approach. DARU Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vol. 24, Issue. 1,


    Reddy, B.P. Kelly, M.P. Thokala, P. Walters, S.J. and Duenas, A. 2014. Prioritising public health guidance topics in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Public Health, Vol. 128, Issue. 10, p. 896.


    Mitton, Craig Dionne, Francois and Donaldson, Cam 2014. Managing Healthcare Budgets in Times of Austerity: The Role of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Vol. 12, Issue. 2, p. 95.


    Kosherbayeva, Lyazzat Hailey, David Kurakbaev, Kural Tabarov, Adlet Kumar, Ainur Gutzskaya, Gulnara and Stepkina, Elena 2016. A PROCESS OF PRIORITIZING TOPICS FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN KAZAKHSTAN. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 32, Issue. 03, p. 147.


    Amaral, Thiago M. and Costa, Ana P.C. 2014. Improving decision-making and management of hospital resources: An application of the PROMETHEE II method in an Emergency Department. Operations Research for Health Care, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, p. 1.


    ×
  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 26, Issue 3
  • July 2010, pp. 341-347

Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH

  • Don Husereau (a1), Michel Boucher (a1) and Hussein Noorani (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462310000383
  • Published online: 29 June 2010
Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe a current practical approach of priority setting of health technology assessment (HTA) research that involves multi-criteria decision analysis and a deliberative process.

Methods: Criteria related to HTA prioritization were identified and grouped through a systematic review and consultation with a selection committee. Criteria were scored through a pair-wise comparison approach. Criteria were pruned based on the average weights obtained from consistent (consistency index < 0.2) responders and consensus. HTA proposals are ranked based on available information and a weighted criteria score. The rank, along with additional contextual information and discussion among committee members, is used to achieve consensus on HTA research priorities.

Results: Six of eleven criteria represented > 75 percent of the weight behind committee member decisions to conduct an HTA. These criteria were disease burden, clinical impact, alternatives, budget impact, economic impact, and available evidence. Since May 2006, committees have considered 102 proposals at sixteen biannual in-person advisory committee meetings. These have selected twenty-nine research priorities for the HTA program.

Conclusions: The approach works well and was easy to implement. Feedback from committee members has been positive. This approach may assist HTA and other research agencies in better priority setting by informing the selection of the most important and policy-relevant topics in the presence of a wide variety of research proposals. This may in turn lead to efficiently allocating resources available for HTA research.

Copyright
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.

1.RN Battista , B Côté , MJ Hodge , D Husereau . Health technology assessment in Canada. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):5360.

2.AJ Culyer , J Lomas . Deliberative processes and evidence-informed decision making in healthcare: Do they work and how might we know? Evid Policy. 2006;2:357371.

5.J Doyle , E Waters , D Yach , Global priority setting for Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59:193197.

6.MF Drummond , JS Schwartz , B Jönsson , Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244258.

7.DM Eddy . Selecting technologies for assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5:484501.


10.S Innvaer , G Vist , M Trommald , A Oxman . Health policy-makers perceptions of their use of evidence: A systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:239244.

12.D Menon , T Stafinski . Health technology assessment in Canada: 20 years strong? Value Health. 2009;12 (Suppl 2):S14S19.

14. HZ Noorani , DR Husereau , R Boudreau , B Skidmore . Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:310315.

15.CE Phelps , ST Parente . Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Med Care. 1990;28:703723.

16.TL Saaty , LG Vargas . Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001.


18.J Townsend , M Buxton , G Harper . Prioritisation of health technology assessment. The PATHS model: Methods and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:194.

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: