Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Supporting the use of health technology assessments in policy making about health systems

  • John N. Lavis (a1), Michael G. Wilson (a1), Jeremy M. Grimshaw (a2), R. Brian Haynes (a3), Mathieu Ouimet (a4), Parminder Raina (a1), Russell L. Gruen (a5) and Ian D. Graham (a6)...
Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study is to profile the health technology assessments (HTAs) produced in Canada and other selected countries and assess their potential to inform policy making about health systems in jurisdictions other than the ones for which they were produced, and to develop and pilot test prototypes for packaging and assessing the relevance of HTAs for health system managers and policy makers.

Methods: We compiled an inventory of all HTAs that were produced by nine HTA agencies between September 2003 and August 2006; coded the title and abstract of each HTA according to the technologies assessed, methods used, and whether or not context-specific actionable messages were provided; developed a prototype for a structured, decision-relevant HTA summary and for a relevance-assessment form; and pilot-tested the prototypes using semistructured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of Canadian healthcare managers and policy makers.

Results: Our review of the 223 HTAs identified that: (i) 44 HTAs addressed health system arrangements (20 percent); (ii) 205 incorporated a systematic review (92 percent), whereas only 12 incorporated a sociopolitical assessment using explicit methods (5 percent); and (iii) 50 contained context-specific actionable messages (22 percent). Our interviews identified significant support for both the general idea of an HTA summary and the prototype's specific elements, but mixed views about using peer assessments of relevance.

Conclusions: Those involved in supporting the use of HTAs in policy making about health systems may wish to produce structured decision-relevant summaries for their systematic review-containing HTAs to increase the prospects for their HTAs being used outside the jurisdiction for which they were produced.

Copyright
References
Hide All
1. Battista RN, Banta HD, Jonsson E, Hodge M, Gelbland H. Lessons from the eight countries. Health Policy. 1994;30:397421.
2. Battista RN, Lance J-M, Lehoux P, Regnier G. Health technology assessment and the regulation of medical devices and procedures in Quebec: Synergy, collusion, or collision? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:593601.
3. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. FAQ. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/hta/faq (accessed December 23, 2009).
4. Chou R, Helfand M. Challenges in systematic reviews that assess treatment harms. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142 (pt 2):10901099.
5. Cookson R, Maynard A. Health technology assessment in Europe: Improving clarity and performance. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:639650.
6. DeJean D, Giacomini M, Schwartz L, Miller FA. Ethics in Canadian health technology assessment: A descriptive review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:463469.
7. Draborg E, Anderson CK. Recommendations in health technology assessments worldwide. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:155160.
8. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D. Time-trends in health technology assessments: An analysis of developments in composition of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:492498.
9. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:8995.
10. Eisenberg JM. Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA. 1999;282:18651869.
11. EUnetHTA Work Package 5 Members. Applicability testing of WP5 toolkit – Round two: Summary report. Southampton, England: NIHR Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA); 2008.
12. Fretheim A, Munabi-Babigumira S, Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Lewin S. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 6: Using research evidence to address how an option will be implemented. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7 (Suppl 1):S6.
13. Giacomini M. The which-hunt: Assembling health technologies for assessment and rationing. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1999;24:715758.
14. Goodman CS, Ahn R. Methodological approaches of health technology assessment. Int J Med Inform. 1999;56:97105.
15. GRADE Working Group. Education and debate: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:14901494.
16. Granados A, Jonsson E, Banta HD, et al. EUR-ASSESS project subgroup report on dissemination and impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:220286.
17. Hailey D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:17.
18. Haynes RB. bmjupdates+, a new free service for evidence-based clinical practice. Evid Based Nurs. 2005;8:39.
19. Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, et al. Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners. JAMA. 2006;295:18011808.
20. Haynes RB, Holland J, Cotoi C, et al. McMaster PLUS: A cluster randomized clinical trial of an intervention to accelerate clinical use of evidence-based information from digital libraries. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:593600.
21. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. A checklist for health technology assessment reports. Stockholm, Sweden: INAHTA Secretariat; 2001.
22. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. HTA resources: Definitions – technology assessment. Stockholm, Sweden: International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. http://www.inahta.org (accessed December 23, 2009).
23. Jonsson E, Banta D. Management of health technologies: An international view. BMJ. 1999;319:1293.
24. Lavis JN. How can we support the use of systematic reviews in policymaking? PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000141.
25. Lavis JN, Davies HTO, Oxman AD, et al. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10 (Suppl 1):S1:35–S1:48.
26. Lavis JN, Posada FB, Haines A, Osei E. Use of research to inform public policymaking. Lancet. 2004;364:16151621.
27. Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Oxman AD, et al. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 5: Using research evidence to frame options to address a problem. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7 (Suppl 1):S5.
28. Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 4: Using research evidence to clarify a problem. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7 (Suppl 1):S4.
29. Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:10831120.
30. Lehoux P, Denis JL, Tailliez S, Hivon M. Dissemination of health technology assessments: Identifying the visions guiding an evolving policy innovation in Canada. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2005;30:603641.
31. Lehoux P, Tailliez S, Denis JL, Hivon M. Redefining health technology assessment in Canada: Diversification of products and contextualization of findings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:325336.
32. Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S. Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2005.
33. McGregor M, Brophy JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:263267.
34. Mears R, Taylor R, Littlejohns P, Dillon A. Review of international health technology assessment. London, England: National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2000.
35. Menon D. An assessment of health technology assessment in Canada. Can J Public Health. 2000;91:120.
36. Menon D, Topfer LA. Health technology assessment in Canada: A decade in review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:896902.
37. Office of Technology Assessment. Development of medical technologies: Opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1976.
38. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. A consumers' guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:7884.
39. Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Lohr KN, Teutsch S, Mandelblatt J. Challenges in systematic reviews of economic analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142 (pt 2):10731090.
40. Tsikata S, Robinson V, Petticrew M. Do Cochrane systematic reviews contain useful information about health equity? Barcelona, Spain: 11th Cochrane Colloquium; 2003.
41. Velasco Garrido M, Busse R. Health technology assessment: An introduction to objectives, role of evidence and structures in Europe. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe/ European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2005.
42. Velasco Garrido M, Gerhardus A, Røttingen JA, Busse R. Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy. 2010;94:196202.
43. Velasco Garrido M, Perleth M, Drummond M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments: Working group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361422.
44. Velasco Garrido M, Zentner A, Busse R. Health systems, health policy and health technology assessment. In: Velasco Garrido M, Kristensen FB, Nielsen CP, Busse R, eds. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe: Current status, challenges and potential. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization; 2008:5379.
45. World Health Organization. The Mexico statement on health research: Knowledge for better health: Strengthening health systems. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004.
46. World Health Organization. World report on knowledge for better health: Strengthening health systems. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004.
47. World Health Organization. The Bamako call to action on research for health: Strengthening research for health, development, and equity. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2008.
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:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Lavis et al. supplementary material
Appendices

 Word (167 KB)
167 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 32 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 168 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.