Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

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)
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
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.

BantaDH, AndreasenPB. 1990The politcal dimension in health care technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.6: 115123.

CarlssonP. 2004 Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 4454.

ChaseD, MilneR, SteinK, StevensA. 2000What are the relative merits of the sources used to identify potential research priorities for the NHS HTA programme? Int J Technol Assess Health Care.16: 743750.

DaviesL, DrummondM, PapanikolaouP. 2000Prioritizing investments in health technology assessment. Can we assess potential value for money?Int J Technol Assess Health Care.16: 7391.

EddyDM. 1989Selecting technologies for assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.5: 485501.

Garcia-AltesA, Ondategui-ParraS, NeumannPJ. 2004 Cross-national comparison of technology assessment processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 300310.

GulácsiL, BonczI, DrummondM. 2004Issues for countries considering introducing the “fourth hurdle”: The case of Hungary. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.20: 337341.

HagenfeldtK, AsuaJ, BellucciS, et al. 2002Systems for routine information sharing in HTA. Working group 2 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.18: 273320.

HarperG, TownsendJ, BuxtonM. 1998The preliminary economic evaluation of health technologies for the prioritization of health technology assessments. A discussion. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.14: 652662.

HenshallC, OortwijnW, StevensA, GranadosA, BantaD. 1997Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. A paper produced by the Priority Setting Subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.13: 144185.

OliverS, MilneR, BradburnJ, et al. 2001Involving consumers in a needs-led research programme: A pilot project. Health Expect.4: 1828.

OortwijnW, BantaD, VondelingH, BouterL. 1999Identification and priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: Actors and activities. Health Policy.47: 241253.

OortwijnWJ, VondelingH, BouterL. 1998The use of societal criteria in priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands. Initial experiences and future challenges. Int J Technol Assess Health Care.14: 226236.

OortwijnWJ, VondelingH, vanBarneveld T, vanVugt C, BouterLM. 2002Priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: Principles and practice. Health Policy.62: 227242.

PhelpsCE, ParenteST. 1990Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Med Care.28: 703723.

ShaniS, SiebzehnerMI, LuxenburgO, ShemerJ. 2000Setting priorities for the adoption of health technologies on a national level—The Israeli experience. Health Policy.54: 169185.

StevensA, MilneR. 2004 Health technology assessment in England and Wales. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 1124.

TownsendJ, BuxtonM, HarperG. 2003Prioritisation of health technology assessment. The PATHS model: Methods and case studies. Health Technol Assess.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:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 122 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 364 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.