Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-7cz98 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T12:39:39.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONSIDERING EQUITY IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF AGENCY PRACTICES

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2015

Dimitra Panteli ,
Julia Kreis  and
Reinhard Busse
Dimitra Panteli
Affiliation:
Department of Health Care Management, Berlin University of Technologydimitra.panteli@tu-berlin.de
Julia Kreis
Affiliation:
Department of Health Care Management, Berlin University of Technology; Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care
Reinhard Busse
Affiliation:
Department of Health Care Management, Berlin University of Technology
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Equity is one of the founding principles in most healthcare systems. Financial constraints entail an increased risk of exacerbating inequities and a greater need for evidence-based decisions. It is, therefore, both important and timely to enquire how equity can be addressed in health technology assessment (HTA) practice. We aimed to explore related practices from a broad range of HTA agencies, identify exemplary approaches and common concerns, and offer insights for future considerations.

Methods: HTA agencies for which both methodological guides and HTA reports were publicly available were selected from an initial comprehensive pool. Information was extracted on issues ranging from a general commitment to fairness to specific measures targeting both methodological and process-related elements.

Results: Methodological documents and ninety-eight reports from nineteen agencies were analyzed. Our findings indicate that equity was not a standard consideration in HTA report production. The nature of specific approaches and the amount of resources invested into including an equity perspective varied considerably. Specific measures (e.g., appropriate information sources, analytical tools, and schemes) were mentioned by almost half of the agencies analyzed. Albeit sporadic, both horizontal and vertical equity considerations were identified in included HTA reports.

Conclusions: While varying legal contexts and institutional principles can lead to different interpretations of equity at the decision point, a combination of methodological and process-related practices could contribute to more equity-sensitive evaluations, especially in conjunction with enhanced dissemination of existing methodological tools. Networking initiatives on behalf of existing collaborating platforms could play an important role in this direction.

Keywords

EquityHealth technology assessmentInequitiesAgency approaches

Information

Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 31 , Issue 5 , 2015 , pp. 314 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

The authors thank Dr. Annette Zentner for her support and insightful input. Furthermore, we thank Tessa Creutz, Helene Eckhardt, Susanne Felgner, and Ilona Renner for their assistance in the technical preparation of the paper.

References

REFERENCES

1. WHO. Making fair choices on the path to universal health coverage. Final report of the WHO Consultative Group on Equity and Universal Health Coverage. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2014.Google Scholar
2. Whitehead, M. The concepts and principles of equity and health. Int J Health Serv. 1992;22:429–445.Google Scholar
3. Marmot, M, Friel, S, Bell, R, Houweling, TA, Taylor, S. Commission on social determinants of health. Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet. 2008;372:1661–1669.Google Scholar
4. Evans, T, Brown, H. Road traffic crashes: Operationalizing equity in the context of health sector reform. Inj Control Saf Promot. 2003;10:11–12.Google Scholar
5. Kavanagh, J, Oliver, S, Lorenc, T. Reflections on developing and using PROGRESS-Plus. Equity Update. 2008;10:1–3.Google Scholar
6. Tugwell, P, de Savigny, D, Hawker, G, Robinson, V. Applying clinical epidemiological methods to health equity: The equity effectiveness loop. BMJ. 2006;332:358–3561.Google Scholar
7. Tugwell, P, Bennett, KJ, Sackett, DL, Haynes, RB. The measurement iterative loop: A framework for the critical appraisal of need, benefits and costs of health interventions. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:339–351.Google Scholar
8. Velasco, 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;18:361–422.Google Scholar
9. Oxman, AD, Schunemann, HJ, Fretheim, A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 12. Incorporating considerations of equity. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:24.Google Scholar
10. Oxman, AD, Lavis, JN, Lewin, S, Fretheim, A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 10: Taking equity into consideration when assessing the findings of a systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7 (Suppl 1):S10.Google Scholar
11. Williams, AH, Cookson, RA. Equity-efficiency trade-offs in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:1–9.Google Scholar
12. Culyer, AJ, Bombard, Y. An equity framework for health technology assessments. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:428–441.Google Scholar
13. Lehoux, P, Williams-Jones, B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:9–16.Google Scholar
14. Ueffing, E, Tugwell, P, Hatcher Roberts, J, et al. Equity-oriented toolkit for health technology assessment and knowledge translation: Application to scaling up of training and education for health workers. Hum Resour Health. 2009;7:67.Google Scholar
15. Tugwell, P, Petticrew, M, Kristjansson, E, et al. Assessing equity in systematic reviews: Realising the recommendations of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. BMJ. 2010;341:c4739.Google Scholar
16. Welch, V, Petticrew, M, Tugwell, P, et al. PRISMA-Equity 2012 extension: Reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001333.Google Scholar
17. McDaid, D, Sassi, F. Equity, efficiency and research synthesis. In: Shemilt, I, Mugford, M, Vale, L, Marsh, K, Donaldson, C, eds. Evidence-based decisions and economics: Health care, social welfare, education and criminal justice. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010:67–78.Google Scholar
18. Johri, M, Norheim, OF. Can cost-effectiveness analysis integrate concerns for equity? Systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:125–132.Google Scholar
19. Cookson, R, Drummond, M, Weatherly, H. Explicit incorporation of equity considerations into economic evaluation of public health interventions. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4 (Pt 2):231–245.Google Scholar
20. Kelly, M, Morgan, A, Bonnefoy, J, Butt, J, Bergman, V. The social determinants of health: Developing an evidence base for political action. Final Report to World Health Organization Commission on the Social Determinants of Health from Measurement and Evidence Knowledge Network. Concepción and London, 2007. http://www.who.int/social_determinants/resources/mekn_report_10oct07.pdf (accessed June 10, 2015).Google Scholar
21. Tugwell, P, Maxwell, L, Welch, V, et al. Is health equity considered in systematic reviews of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group? Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:1603–1610.Google Scholar
22. Welch, V, Petticrew, M, Ueffing, E, et al. Does consideration and assessment of effects on health equity affect the conclusions of systematic reviews? A methodology study. PloS One. 2012;7:e31360.Google Scholar
23. Welch, VA, Petticrew, M, O’Neill, J, et al. Health equity: Evidence synthesis and knowledge translation methods. Syst Rev. 2013;2:43.Google Scholar
24. Guindo, LA, Wagner, M, Baltussen, R, et al. From efficacy to equity: Literature review of decision criteria for resource allocation and healthcare decisionmaking. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10:9.Google Scholar
25. Mathes, T, Jacobs, E, Morfeld, JC, Pieper, D. Methods of international health technology assessment agencies for economic evaluations–a comparative analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:371.Google Scholar
26. Humphreys, DK, Ogilvie, D. Synthesising evidence for equity impacts of population-based physical activity interventions: A pilot study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:76.Google Scholar
27. Panteli, D, Zentner, A, Storz-Pfennig, P, Busse, R. Gender in health technology assessment: Pilot study on agency approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:224–229.Google Scholar
28. Clifford, TJ. Gender issues: Do as I say, not as I do? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:191–192.Google Scholar
29. Culyer, AJ. Equity of what in healthcare? Why the traditional answers don't help policy-and what to do in the future. Healthc Pap. 2007;8 (Spec No):12–26.Google Scholar
30. Dolan, P, Edlin, R, Tsuchiya, A, Wailoo, A. It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it: Characteristics of procedural justice and their importance in social decision-making. J Econ Behav Organ. 2007;64:157–170.Google Scholar
31. Gagnon, MP, Desmartis, M, Lepage-Savary, D, et al. Introducing patients’ and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:31–42.Google Scholar
32. Kreis, J, Puhan, MA, Schunemann, HJ, Dickersin, K. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect. 2013;16:323–337.Google Scholar
33. Fayter, D, Main, C, Misso, K, et al. Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking. York: University of York; 2008Google Scholar
34. NICE's equality objectives and equality programme 2013 - 2016 [press release]. London, 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/Who-we-are/Policies-and-procedures/NICE-equality-scheme/NICE-equality-objectives-and-equality-programme-2013-2016.pdf (accessed June 10, 2015).Google Scholar
35. Petticrew, M, Tugwell, P, Kristjansson, E, et al. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t: Subgroup analysis and equity. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2012;66:95–98.Google Scholar
36. Cavazza, M, Jommi, C. Stakeholders involvement by HTA organisations: Why is so different? Health Policy. 2012;105:236–245.Google Scholar
37. Nasser, M, Ueffing, E, Welch, V, Tugwell, P. An equity lens can ensure an equity-oriented approach to agenda setting and priority setting of Cochrane Reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:511–521.Google Scholar
38. Burford, BJ, Welch, V, Waters, E, et al. Testing the PRISMA-Equity 2012 reporting guideline: The perspectives of systematic review authors. PloS One. 2013;8:e75122.Google Scholar
39. European Patient Forum. Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment in Europe. Results of the EPF Survey. Brussels, 2013. http://www.eu-patient.eu/globalassets/projects/hta/hta-epf-final-report2013.pdf (accessed June 10, 2015).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Panteli supplementary material

Table S1

Download Panteli supplementary material(File)
File 39.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Panteli supplementary material

Table S3

Download Panteli supplementary material(File)
File 21 KB
Supplementary material: File

Panteli supplementary material

Table S2

Download Panteli supplementary material(File)
File 89.6 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Panteli supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Panteli supplementary material(Image)
Image 256.8 KB