Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T12:52:51.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Priority Setting for Health Technology Assessment: Theoretical Considerations and Practical Approaches: A paper produced by the Priority Setting Subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Chris Henshall ,
Wija Oortwijn ,
Andrew Stevens ,
Alicia Granados  and
David Banta
Chris Henshall
Affiliation:
Department of Health, London, England
Wija Oortwijn
Affiliation:
Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Leiden, The Netherlands
Andrew Stevens
Affiliation:
National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment, Winchester, England
Alicia Granados
Affiliation:
Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment (CAHTA), Barcelona, Spain
David Banta
Affiliation:
Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Leiden, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This report is about setting priorities for health technology assessment (HTA). HTA examines systematically the consequences of the application of health technologies (broadly defined to include any health care intervention) to support decision making in policy and practice. Only a fraction of existing health technologies have been formally evaluated, and many more appear each year. Resources for HTA are, however, limited so that priorities have to be set, whether explicitly or implicitly. The aim of setting priorities for HTA should be to identify those assessments that offer the greatest benefits in relation to their cost, and thus to maximize the benefit derived from investments in HTA.

Type
Special Section: Report from the Eur-Assess Project Eur-Assess
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , Spring 1997 , pp. 144 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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.Abel Smith, B., & Mossialos, E.Cost containment and health care reform: A study of the European Union. Health Policy 1994, 28, 89–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.AHCPR. Proposed methodology for establishing priorities for health technology assessments. Federal Register, 1994, 59, 79.Google Scholar
3.Banta, H. D., Oortwijn, W. J., & Van Beekum, W. T.The organization of health care technology assessment in the Netherlands. The Hague: Rathenau Institute, 1995.Google Scholar
4.Buxton, M., & Hanney, S.How can payback from health services research be assessed? Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 1996, 1, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment. The place of health technology assessment in the health policy decision making process. Barcelona: Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment, 10 1996.Google Scholar
6.Department of Health, NHS Executive Report of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme 1996. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1996.Google Scholar
7.Donaldson, M. S., & Sox, H. C. (eds.). Setting priorities for health technology assessment: A model process. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1992.Google Scholar
8.Eddy, D. M.Selecting technologies for assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 1989, 5, 485–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Granados, A.Health technology assessment: Methods of technology evaluation. International Conference on Scientific Basis of Health Services, London, 10 1995.Google Scholar
10.Granados, A., & Borras, J. M.Technology assessment in Catalonia: Integrating economic appraisal. Social Science of Medicine, 1994, 38, 1643–1646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Lara, M. E., & Goodman, C. (eds.). National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies: Report of a pilot study. Priority Setting Group Council on Health Care Technology. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 1990.Google Scholar
12.Oortwijn, W. J., Ament, A. J. H. A., & Vondeling, H.Tools for use of societal criteria in priority setting in evaluation of medical technology in the Netherlands: Development and testing of a checklist. In Malek, M. (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference Strategic Issues in Health Care Management March 29–31,1994, St. Andrews, Scotland. Setting Priorities in Health Care. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Brisbane, 1994, 203–216.Google Scholar
13.Rico, R., & Asua, J.The prioritisation of evaluation topics of health. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain: Osteba, 1996.Google Scholar
14.Townsend, J., & Buxton, M. J. Cost-effectiveness scenario analysis for a proposed trial of hormone replacement therapy. Health Policy, (in press).Google Scholar
15.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Identifying health technologies that work: Searching for evidence. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 09. 1994, OTA-H-608.Google Scholar