We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Novel health technologies are being developed at a dizzying pace. The need to avoid unnecessary innovations and accelerate the adoption of valuable innovations is among the most important challenges facing healthcare systems today. To contribute to this challenge, we performed 30 so-called ‘early health technology assessments’ (HTA) over the last three years. We quantified the potential value, both in effects and cost. We will present our experience with performing these constructive assessments, as well as their feasibility and value in informing decisions.
Methods:
We performed secondary analyses on an existing database of 30 assessments. We analyzed the phase of development, stakeholders involved, type of decision informed, and the technology's next steps.
Results:
Out of the 30 technologies, four (13 percent) were in the idea screening phase, and had not yet started the development. Here, the room for improvement (headroom) was assessed. For 16 (53 percent) technologies that were under development but not yet studied, we performed headroom and threshold analyses. For the 10 (33 percent) developed technologies where some (pilot) data were already available, scenario and/or cost-effectiveness analyses were performed. The assessments, that were commissioned by developers, clinicians or hospital managers informed evidence-based decisions on (further) development, focus, research design or adoption in clinical practice. Preliminary results suggest that after the assessment, decisions were made to stop further development (n=2), continue outside healthcare (n=1), change the target population (n=3) or change the proposed positioning in the care pathway and/or value proposition (n=4).
Conclusions:
Stakeholders deemed an early, formative assessment useful in informing development, research and adoption decisions, in different stages of development. Even before developing a technology, headroom analyses appeared to be feasible and useful. Consequences of the assessments mostly related to a shift in focus, which may result in more efficient research and development, as well as more valuable innovations.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.