Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 46
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    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.


    Kosherbayeva, Lyazzat Hailey, David Kurakbaev, Kural Tsoy, Aleksey Zhuzzhanov, Ormanbek Donbay, Abilay Kumar, Ainur and Nadyrov, Kamalzhan 2016. IMPLEMENTATION OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT WORK IN A HOSPITAL IN KAZAKHSTAN. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 32, Issue. 1-2, p. 78.


    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,


    Wiseman, Virginia Mitton, Craig Doyle-Waters, Mary M. Drake, Tom Conteh, Lesong Newall, Anthony T. Onwujekwe, Obinna and Jan, Stephen 2016. Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low-Income and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks. Health Economics, Vol. 25, p. 140.


    Baji, Petra García-Goñi, Manuel Gulácsi, László Mentzakis, Emmanouil and Paolucci, Francesco 2015. Comparative analysis of decision maker preferences for equity/efficiency attributes in reimbursement decisions in three European countries. The European Journal of Health Economics,


    Grepstad, Mari and Kanavos, Panos 2015. A comparative analysis of coverage decisions for outpatient pharmaceuticals: Evidence from Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Health Policy, Vol. 119, Issue. 2, p. 203.


    Maschio, Marta and Paladin, Francesco 2015. Epilepsy and Brain Tumors.


    Paolucci, Francesco Mentzakis, Emmanouil Defechereux, Thierry and Niessen, Louis W 2015. Equity and efficiency preferences of health policy makers in China—a stated preference analysis. Health Policy and Planning, Vol. 30, Issue. 8, p. 1059.


    Raftery, James Young, Amanda Stanton, Louise Milne, Ruairidh Cook, Andrew Turner, David and Davidson, Peter 2015. Clinical trial metadata: defining and extracting metadata on the design, conduct, results and costs of 125 randomised clinical trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 19, Issue. 11, p. 1.


    Testa, Americo Francesconi, Andrea Giannuzzi, Rosangela Berardi, Silvia and Sbraccia, Paolo 2015. Economic analysis of bedside ultrasonography (US) implementation in an Internal Medicine department. Internal and Emergency Medicine, Vol. 10, Issue. 8, p. 1015.


    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.


    Yazdanpanah, B. Safari, M. Vafaei, F. and Zandi, K. 2015. Life skills education of rural families in Iran: a community-based participatory study. Public Health, Vol. 129, Issue. 5, p. 587.


    Yu, Tsung Li, Tianjing Lee, Kinbo J. Friedman, David S. Dickersin, Kay and Puhan, Milo A. 2015. Setting Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research on Management of Primary Angle Closure. Journal of Glaucoma, Vol. 24, Issue. 5, p. 348.


    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,


    Miniati, R. Cecconi, G. Frosini, F. Dori, F. Regolini, J. Iadanza, E. and Gentili, G. Biffi 2014. 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. p. 3504.

    Tulchinsky, Theodore H. and Varavikova, Elena A. 2014. The New Public Health.


    Clavisi, Ornella Bragge, Peter Tavender, Emma Turner, Tari and Gruen, Russell L. 2013. Effective stakeholder participation in setting research priorities using a Global Evidence Mapping approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 66, Issue. 5, p. 496.


    Nasser, Mona Welch, Vivian Ueffing, Erin Crowe, Sally Oliver, Sandy and Carlo, Reshma 2013. Evidence in agenda setting: new directions for the Cochrane Collaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 66, Issue. 5, p. 469.


    Poulin, Paule Austen, Lea Scott, Catherine M. Waddell, Cameron D. Dixon, Elijah Poulin, Michelle and Lafrenière, René 2013. Multi‐criteria development and incorporation into decision tools for health technology adoption. Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 27, Issue. 2, p. 246.


    Defechereux, Thierry Paolucci, Francesco Mirelman, Andrew Youngkong, Sitaporn Botten, Grete Hagen, Terje P and Niessen, Louis W 2012. Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis. BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 12, Issue. 1,


    ×
  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 23, Issue 3
  • July 2007, pp. 310-315

Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches

  • Hussein Z. Noorani (a1), Donald R. Husereau (a1), Rhonda Boudreau (a1) and Becky Skidmore (a2)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S026646230707050X
  • Published online: 01 July 2007
Abstract

Objectives: This study sought to identify and compare various practical and current approaches of health technology assessment (HTA) priority setting.

Methods: A literature search was performed across PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and Cochrane. Given an earlier review conducted by European agencies (EUR-ASSESS project), the search was limited to literature indexed from 1996 onward. We also searched Web sites of HTA agencies as well as HTAi and ISTAHC conference abstracts. Agency representatives were contacted for information about their priority-setting processes. Reports on practical approaches selected through these sources were identified independently by two reviewers.

Results: A total of twelve current priority-setting frameworks from eleven agencies were identified. Ten countries were represented: Canada, Denmark, England, Hungary, Israel, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, and United States. Fifty-nine unique HTA priority-setting criteria were divided into eleven categories (alternatives; budget impact; clinical impact; controversial nature of proposed technology; disease burden; economic impact; ethical, legal, or psychosocial implications; evidence; interest; timeliness of review; variation in rates of use). Differences across HTA agencies were found regarding procedures for categorizing, scoring, and weighing of policy criteria.

Conclusions: Variability exists in the methods for priority setting of health technology assessment across HTA agencies. Quantitative rating methods and consideration of cost benefit for priority setting were seldom used. These study results will assist HTA agencies that are re-visiting or developing their prioritization methods.

Copyright
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: