25 results
PP129 Health Technology Assessment Adaptation: Pharyngolaryngeal Biopsies (OLB) For People with Suspected Head and Neck Cancer in the Outpatient Setting
- Charlotte Bowles, Rebecca Boyce, Gareth Hopkin, Matthew Prettyjohns, Sophie Hughes, Elise Hasler, Katie McDermott, Susan Myles
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 39 / Issue S1 / December 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 14 December 2023, p. S86
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
In the UK over 12,400 yearly cases of head and neck cancers are reported (2021). Pharyngolaryngeal biopsies (OLB) may improve the speed of diagnosis and treatment of head and neck cancers under local anesthetic. The Scottish Health Technologies Group (SHTG) published advice on this technology in 2018. Since this, additional evidence has been published to warrant a health technology assessment (HTA) for Wales. The aim of this review was to provide update on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of OLB when compared to undergoing biopsy in an operating theatre (OTB) under general anesthetic to inform decision making in Wales.
MethodsA rapid review was undertaken of relevant databases since 2018 of the clinical evidence, health economics and patient perspectives relevant to Wales. Health Technology Wales (HTW) developed a de-novo cost-utility analysis comparing OLB to OTB over a lifetime horizon. Inputs were sourced from the SHTG budget impact analysis, updated with values more relevant to a Welsh setting.
ResultsFrom consultation to biopsy procedure, the mean number of days was 1.3 for OLB compared to 17.4 days under OTB (p < 0.05). The mean time from consultation to start of treatment was 27 days for OLB compared to 41.5 days for OTB (p < 0.05). The economic analysis found a resulting ICER of GBP21,011 (EUR23,824.23) in a population with 2,183 at risk patients. As OLB was associated with lower costs (GBP816 per person) (EUR925.26) and fewer quality adjusted life years than OTB (-0.04), this ICER corresponds to OLB being considered a cost-effective diagnostic strategy.
ConclusionsHTW guidance was able to recommend use of OLB within the diagnostic pathway for head and neck cancers within Wales. For people with a positive test, OLB is sufficient to confirm a diagnosis but should not be used to rule out a diagnosis due to the potential in reducing the time to diagnosis and treatment in a cost-saving way.
PP58 SARS-CoV-2: A Rapid Review Of The Transmission Risk From Vaccinated Populations
- Sasha Barrate, Lauren Elston, Katie McDermott, Jenni Washington, Elise Hasler, David Jarrom, Charlotte Bowles, Jessica Williams Tom Winfield, Susan Myles
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 38 / Issue S1 / December 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 December 2022, p. S60
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
Since the vaccine roll out, research has focused on vaccine safety and efficacy, with large clinical trials confirming that vaccines are generally effective against symptomatic COVID-19 infection. However, breakthrough infections can still occur, and the effectiveness of vaccines against transmission from infected vaccinated people to susceptible contacts is unclear.
Health Technology Wales (HTW) collaborated with the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre to identify and examine evidence on the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 from vaccinated people to unvaccinated or vaccinated people.
MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search for evidence on vaccinated people exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in any setting. Outcome measures included transmission rate, cycle threshold (Ct) values and viral load. We identified a rapid review by the University of Calgary that was the main source of our outcome data. Nine studies published following the rapid review were also identified and included.
ResultsIn total, 35 studies were included in this review: one randomized controlled trial (RCT), one post-hoc analysis of an RCT, 13 prospective cohort studies, 16 retrospective cohort studies and four case control studies.
All studies reported a reduction in transmission of the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant from partial and fully vaccinated individuals. More recent evidence is uncertain on the effects of vaccination on transmission of the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. Overall, vaccine effectiveness in reducing transmission appears to increase with full vaccination, compared with partial vaccination. Most of the direct evidence is limited to transmission in household settings therefore, there is a gap in the evidence on risk of transmission in other settings. One UK study found protection against onward transmission waned within 3 months post second vaccination.
ConclusionsEarly findings that focused on the alpha variant, showed a reduction in transmission from vaccinated people. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of vaccination on transmission of the Delta variant, therefore alternative preventative measures to reduce transmission may still be required.
PP72 SARS-CoV-2: A Rapid Review On The Effectiveness Of Face Coverings To Reduce Transmission
- Thomas Winfield, Gareth Hopkin, Lauren Elston, Claire Davis, Jenni Washington, David Jarrom, Katie McDermott, Susan Myles
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 38 / Issue S1 / December 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 December 2022, pp. S63-S64
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
At various stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, face coverings have been recommended and encouraged as one of the interventions to reduce transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, in the earlier stages of the pandemic, decisions on face coverings relied primarily on evidence based on other viral respiratory infections. More direct evidence on the use of face coverings with COVID-19 developed in tandem with the pandemic.
Health Technology Wales undertook an ultra-rapid review to inform national guidelines, the work assessed the evidence on the effectiveness of face coverings to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We also reviewed evidence on the efficacy of different types of face coverings.
MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search for evidence to address (i) the effectiveness of face coverings to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in the community, and (ii) the efficacy of different types of face coverings designed for use in community settings. We identified a rapid review in 2021 by Public Health England that closely aligned with our review questions. This provided the main source for identifying relevant studies, supplemented by a search for publications following their search date.
ResultsWe identified two evidence reviews (including the Public Health England review) that examined the effectiveness of face coverings on reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2; reporting on 31 and 39 studies, respectively. Two further primary studies were published after the two evidence review searches were included. Overall, the evidence suggested that face coverings may provide benefits in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, although the higher-quality studies suggested that these benefits may be modest. Medical masks appeared to have higher efficacy than fabric masks, although the evidence was mixed.
ConclusionsAt the time of this review, evidence on the effectiveness of face coverings remains limited and conclusions rely on low-quality sources of evidence with high risk of bias, although higher-quality evidence points to some benefit. Face coverings may play a role in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly as part of a bundle of other preventative measures.
PP57 Collaborating In Times Of COVID: The Launch Of The National Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre
- Lauren Elston, Thomas Winfield, Jenni Washington, David Jarrom, Susan Myles, Ruth Lewis, Alison Cooper, Micaela Gal, Adrian Edwards
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 38 / Issue S1 / December 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 December 2022, p. S59
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic impact on the health and social care landscape, both in terms of service provision and citizen need. Responsive, evidence-based research is essential to develop and implement appropriate policies and practices that manage both the pandemic itself, and the impact COVID-19 has on other health and social care issues.
To address this, the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC) was launched in 2021 with the aim of providing the best available, up-to-date, and relevant evidence to inform health and care decision making across Wales.
MethodsFunded by the Welsh Government, the WCEC comprises of a core team and several collaborating partner organizations, including Health Technology Wales, Wales Centre for Evidence-Based Care, Specialist Unit for Review Evidence Centre, SAIL Databank, Public Health Wales, Bangor Institute for Health & Medical Research in conjunction with Health and Care Economics Cymru, and the Public Health Wales Observatory. Over the last year, WCEC has developed its rapid review processes and methodology informed by best international practice and aims to provide around 50 reviews each year. WCEC works alongside various stakeholder groups from health and social care across Wales, and they form an integral part of the review process, from scoping to knowledge mobilization.
ResultsTo date, the WCEC has produced reviews on a diverse range of COVID-19 topics, including transmission, vaccination uptake (barriers, facilitators and interventions), mental health and wellbeing, as well as face coverings and other preventative interventions. The topics have also covered a wide range of populations, from general public, to healthcare workers, to children. These reviews have been used to inform policy and decision-making, including the Welsh Government’s Chief Medical Officer 21-day COVID-19 reviews.
ConclusionsThe WCEC has brought together multiple specialist centers with a diverse range of skills to produce timely reviews of the most up-to-date research to support decision makers across health and social care. These reviews have informed policy and decision-making across Wales.
PP148 The Impact Of Health Technology Wales Guidance For Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Two Years Post-Publication
- Lauren Elston, Sophie Hughes, Eleni Glarou, Susan Myles
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 38 / Issue S1 / December 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 December 2022, pp. S87-S88
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
Evaluating the impact of health technology assessment (HTA) is vital to measure its contribution to health and social care decision-making and improving citizen outcomes. Health Technology Wales (HTW) is a HTA body committed to evaluating the impact of our work. Here we present HTW’s impact evaluation approach with a case study for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) for highly active relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS).
MethodsUsing an outcomes-focused approach based on contribution analysis, HTW has worked with an external evaluation organization to develop a framework to measure the impact of our work. Data on impact was collected from both qualitative and quantitative sources, including social media metrics, surveys, and informal feedback from stakeholders. We engaged with various stakeholders, including clinicians, academics, patient organizations and other HTA bodies.
ResultsThe technology appraisal and guidance were published in July 2020, recommending AHSCT for routine adoption to treat highly active RRMS. Patient groups welcomed the appraisal findings as an important step forward in recognising the needs of people with RRMS and felt that “people living with MS were listened to throughout the process”. Following publication online, the guidance has had approximately 500 views, and featured on the MS Trust website and in several news articles. The Welsh Health Specialist Services Committee, a commissioning body in Wales, recommended AHSCT for RRMS as a ‘high priority’ for funding in the WHSSC Integrated Commissioning Plan 2021-22.
ConclusionsSince its publication, we have been able to prospectively capture the impact of this guidance through various stakeholders groups and sources. Overall, responses have been positive and the guidance has supported decision makers in Wales. Ongoing evidence capture, including through HTW’s adoption audit processes, will add further understanding to the potential impact of our work.
Disruptive technologies in health care disenchanted: a systematic review of concepts and examples
- Matthias Perleth, Rossella Di Bidino, Li-Ying Huang, Lydia Jones, Michelle Mujoomdar, Susan Myles, Andres Pichon-Riviere, Junainah Sabirin, Tara Schuller, Jennifer Washington
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 38 / Issue 1 / 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 16 May 2022, e70
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objectives
To clarify the concept of disruptive technologies in health care, provide examples and consider implications of potentially disruptive technologies for health technology assessment (HTA).
MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of conceptual and empirical papers on healthcare technologies that are described as “disruptive.” We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 2013 to April 2019 (updated in December 2021). Data extraction was done in duplicate by pairs of reviewers utilizing a data extraction form. A qualitative data analysis was undertaken based on an analytic framework for analysis of the concept and examples. Key arguments and a number of potential predictors of disruptive technologies were derived and implications for HTA organizations were discussed.
ResultsOf 4,107 records, 28 were included in the review. Most of the papers included conceptual discussions and business models for disruptive technologies; only few papers presented empirical evidence. The majority of the evidence is related to the US healthcare system. Key arguments for describing a technology as disruptive include improvement of outcomes for patients, improved access to health care, reduction of costs and better affordability, shift in responsibilities between providers, and change in the organization of health care. A number of possible predictors for disruption were identified to distinguish these from “sustaining” innovations.
ConclusionsSince truly disruptive technologies could radically change technology uptake and may modify provision of care patterns or treatment paths, they require a thorough evaluation of the consequences of using these technologies, including economic and organizational impact assessment and careful monitoring.
OP277 Rapid Development Of An Evaluation Framework: Capturing The Impact Of COVID-19 Activities By A Health Technology Assessment Body
- Lauren Elston, Sophie Hughes, Susan Myles
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 37 / Issue S1 / December 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 03 December 2021, p. 10
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
Health Technology Wales (HTW) is committed to evaluating the impact of our work. In March 2020, HTW directed efforts to support Welsh Government and health and social care providers in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We adapted the HTW evaluation framework to specifically capture the impact of our additional COVID-19 work. Here we analyze data collected since the framework was implemented.
MethodsBoth formal and informal feedback was analyzed. Formal feedback was obtained through the HTW Impact Questionnaire, which was developed to support more formalized data capture for all HTW workstreams and to facilitate feedback from all stakeholder groups. It was piloted with a targeted list of individuals and responses were received for COVID-19 work. Informal feedback included feedback received via email or through word of mouth.
ResultsHTW COVID-19 products to date include Topic Exploration Reports, rapid evidence summaries and an Evidence Appraisal Report (EAR) on COVID-19 diagnostic tests (molecular and antibody tests). Stakeholders were positive about these outputs, describing them as valuable and informative. Reported impacts included informing policy and decision making, reducing duplication of efforts and helping to target development. The EAR received national and international focus, leading to HTW involvement in the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) COVID-19 reviews. Survey participants who gave feedback on COVID-19 activities included two members of Health Technology Assessment organizations, a health board representative and an industry representative; all agreed that HTW's COVID-19 work was useful, that the methods were reliable and robust and that HTW is responsive. All participants also felt that HTW's COVID-19 work had a positive impact in the wider health and social care context.
ConclusionsHTW was able to respond rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic and adapt current evaluation practices to capture the impact of COVID-19 work. We will continue to evaluate our COVID-19 activities. Future work will involve following up on the developing impact of our COVID-19 work and expanding our methods for data capture, for example conducting stakeholder interviews.
Perioperative antimicrobial decision making: Focused ethnography study in orthopedic and cardiothoracic surgeries in an Australian hospital
- Trisha N. Peel, Eliza Watson, Kelly Cairns, Ho Yin (Ashley) Lam, Heidi Zhangrong Li, Ganan Ravindran, Jayan Seneviratne, David Daly, Susan Liew, David McGiffin, Paul Myles, Darshini Ayton
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 41 / Issue 6 / June 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 18 March 2020, pp. 645-652
- Print publication:
- June 2020
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Antimicrobial use in the surgical setting is common and frequently inappropriate. Understanding the behavioral context of antimicrobial use is a critical step to developing stewardship programs.
Design:In this study, we employed qualitative methodologies to describe the phenomenon of antimicrobial use in 2 surgical units: orthopedic surgery and cardiothoracic surgery.
Setting:This study was conducted at a public, quaternary, university-affiliated hospital.
Participants:Healthcare professionals from the 2 surgical unit teams participated in the study.
Methods:We used focused ethnographic and face-to-face semi-structured interviews to observe antimicrobial decision-making behaviors across the patient’s journey from the preadmission clinic to the operating room to the postoperative ward.
Results:We identified 4 key themes influencing decision making in the surgical setting. Compartmentalized communication (theme 1) was observed with demarcated roles and defined pathways for communication (theme 2). Antimicrobial decisions in the operating room were driven by the most senior members of the team. These decisions, however, were delegated to more junior members of staff in the ward and clinic environment (theme 3). Throughout the patient’s journey, communication with the patient about antimicrobial use was limited (theme 4).
Conclusions:Approaches to decision making in surgery are highly structured. Although this structure appears to facilitate smooth flow of responsibility, more junior members of the staff may be disempowered. In addition, opportunities for shared decision making with patients were limited. Antimicrobial stewardship programs need to recognize the hierarchal structure as well as opportunities to engage the patient in shared decision making.
PP150 Bevan Health Technology Exemplars: Early Dialogue To Systematize HTA
- Susan Myles, Sion Charles, Claire Davies, Lauren Elston, Helen Howson, Ruth Louise Poole
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 35 / Issue S1 / 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 31 December 2019, p. 66
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
Wales has ambitious health, wealth, and innovation policies and a clear goal to use the economic muscle of the Welsh National Health Service (NHS) to support its strong life sciences sector. Health Technology Wales (HTW) has a clear remit to appraise technologies over the span of their lifecycle from innovation to obsolescence. HTW is collaborating with the Bevan Commission through their national Health Technology Exemplars (HTEs), which partners NHS and industry stakeholders to strengthen innovation within the Welsh health system.
MethodsHealth technology assessment (HTA) methods were used to produce topic exploration reports for assessing the evidence underpinning applicant innovations. A “Dragons’ Den” expert panel was convened to select the successful HTEs.
ResultsFourteen Bevan HTEs were awarded funds, which were matched by industry partners. Application of HTA methods resulted in more critical consideration of technology value propositions, including: developing pull models of innovation focused on delivering health technology solutions for current problems facing NHS Wales; supporting early dialogue between the NHS and industry partners around demonstrating evidence of improved patient outcomes; and focusing on transformative rather than incremental innovation. The most promising innovations will progress to rapid HTA, where the evidence generated will be used to develop guidance for NHS Wales.
ConclusionsHTA methods were productively deployed at the innovation phase of the technology lifecycle to support evidence-informed allocation of scarce innovation resources. In this way, HTW is working with key stakeholders to identify and offer early support to the most promising innovations, with the aim of expediting their adoption and realizing health benefits for patients as quickly as possible. The Bevan Commission has partnered with HTW to routinely build in HTA and evidence considerations in its future innovation calls and competitions. Thus, HTW has established a “feeder” pipeline for assessing bottom-up service-led innovations and encouraging evidence consideration throughout the lifecycle of innovative technologies.
VP18 Potential Of Real World Evidence For ‘IDEAL’ Procedures Research
- Ruth Louise Poole, Susan Myles, Grace Carolan-Rees
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 35 / Issue S1 / 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 31 December 2019, pp. 79-80
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
Randomized trials and similarly robust research methods generate evidence in carefully controlled settings, often with strict inclusion criteria. But patients in the ‘real world’ often have multiple comorbidities, and treatments are delivered within diverse environments. Trials are also difficult to fund, and rarely collect longitudinal data. Because of these, and other limitations, researchers are increasingly recognizing the inherent value of real world evidence (RWE). This is not only true for pharmaceutical products, and may have even more relevance in the evaluation of complex interventional procedures and non-medicines healthcare technologies. The Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Learning (IDEAL) Framework guides the developmental ‘pipeline’ of surgical (and other) procedures, as well as medical device research (IDEAL-D). IDEAL informs the production of high-quality evidence of safety and effectiveness, but there is potential to further expand its applications.
MethodsOur aim is to investigate the feasibility of using of RWE alongside the IDEAL Framework in the assessment of procedures and devices. Methodological experts from the IDEAL Collaboration, HTA agencies and other healthcare research organisations are contributing their unique perspectives and experiences to explore these methods. As part of this work, Cedar Healthcare Technology Research Centre (Cedar) has attempted to retrospectively apply the IDEAL criteria to a series of RWE projects conducted on behalf of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Interventional Procedures and Medical Technologies Evaluation Programmes.
ResultsCedar's experience indicates that there may be options for using retrospective routinely-collected linked data and other existing sources to address some of the requirements of IDEAL. Likewise, the IDEAL Framework is expected to be a helpful reference when designing new databases and clinical registries for prospective collection of relevant and informative evidence. Examples from several projects will be shared at the Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) conference.
ConclusionsInitial signs are that there are likely to be a number of ways in which IDEAL and RWE could complement one another.
OP91 Developing A Celtic Connections Regional Health Technology Assessment Alliance
- Susan Myles
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 35 / Issue S1 / 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 31 December 2019, p. 23
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
The Irish, Scottish and Welsh national Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies (Health Information and Quality Authority, Health Technology Assessment Group, Scottish Health Technologies Group, Health Technology Wales) have recently (2018) established a ‘Celtic connections’ regional HTA alliance on non-medicine technologies. The primary purpose is to add value by realizing potential economies of scale and scope in non-medicine HTA efforts.
MethodsA Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was agreed to: formalize collaboration and partnership working; improve shared understanding of work programs and processes; collaborate on and co-produce evidence reviews of mutual interest; increase both the volume and range of technology topics for which advice is developed in each nation; promote knowledge exchange; and enhance professional and personal development for each agency's staff.
ResultsEarly benefits include: collaboration on one technology topic resulting in the production of bespoke guidance in three countries; an update of a partner's rapid review; identification of a further potential topic collaboration (sacral nerve stimulation); a six month senior staff secondment; and reciprocal observer membership on each country's national committees. Other general benefits have included: reduced duplication of effort; improved quality assurance through ‘critical friend’ peer review; enhanced access to methodological advice and a broader range of stakeholders; and development of a forum for discussion and peer support.
ConclusionsThe alliance offers real potential to optimize use of the scarce resources for non-medicine technologies across the three countries and increase evidence review and guidance volume through adapting or co-producing outputs. Longer term benefits are anticipated to include: improved knowledge exchange; advancing skills of staff; building and broadening capacity through shared learning and access to a wider professional peer group; improved staff recruitment and retention; production of joint publications and other modes of dissemination; and increased profile for each country's work.
PP186 Telemonitoring With Pacemakers For Patients With Heart Failure
- Susan Myles, Ruth Louise Poole, Karen Facey
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 35 / Issue S1 / 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 31 December 2019, p. 72
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
Evidence supporting the use of pacemakers is well established. However, evidence about the optimal use of pacemaker telemonitoring for disease management in heart failure is not. Health Technology Wales (HTW) held a national adoption event to encourage implementation and best practice in use of pacemaker telemonitoring in the National Health Service (NHS) Wales to improve patient outcomes in heart failure.
MethodsMulti-stakeholder national adoption workshop using a mixture of expert presentations, case studies and interdisciplinary group and panel discussions to agree key actions to understand the value and promote optimal use of pacemakers for remote disease monitoring in patients with heart failure in Wales.
ResultsThe workshop was attended by forty-five senior professionals with an interest in improving care of patients with heart failure. Actions to progress included: providing a centralized Welsh system to support technical issues that arise with telemonitoring; considering interoperability with other NHS Wales systems; encouraging value-based procurement with collection of a core outcome set; agreeing implementation issues with both professionals and patients; audit to understand experience, resource use and outcomes; and sharing manufacturer evidence on the accuracy of telemanagement algorithms. It was suggested that these actions be progressed via an All-Wales multi-stakeholder approach, led by the Welsh Cardiac Network.
ConclusionsDeveloping a more agile, lifecycle approach to technology appraisal is currently advocated; recalibrating the focus from technology assessment to technology management across the complete technology lifecycle. HTW will endeavour through regular adoption events to facilitate such a paradigm shift that aims to understand value and optimise use of evidence-based technologies.
PP151 Establishing Health Technology Assessment Impact Evaluation With Stakeholder Input From Day One
- Ruth Louise Poole, Sophie Hughes, Lauren Elston, Susan Myles
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 35 / Issue S1 / 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 31 December 2019, p. 66
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
Health Technology Wales (HTW) is a relatively new Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agency which focuses on non-medicines. In common with other HTA organizations, it identifies and appraises a range of technologies. However, HTW is also looking beyond the publication of guidance, to assess the adoption of advice and its eventual impact.
MethodsHTW commissioned development of an Evaluation Plan from independent experts (Matter of Focus). A literature review was carried out to inform an options appraisal of methods for assessing impact. The selected approach was Contribution Analysis, which estimates the counterfactual through engagement of stakeholders.
ResultsWhilst it is too early to report the full impact of HTW's guidance, a number of activities have taken place to prepare for evaluation. The core HTW team developed a series of logic models to describe the anticipated impact, the mechanisms by which it would be achieved, and key assumptions. Stakeholders were consulted for insight from a range of perspectives, and to manage expectations. This was achieved through individual interviews, presentation and discussion at committee meetings, and the sharing of written materials for feedback. This information was collated to populate bespoke software (OutNav). The collection of data relating to processes, outputs and outcomes is already an ongoing routine task of researchers and support staff.
ConclusionsHTW has an opportunity to build impact evaluation into its culture from the beginning. This will facilitate the future reporting of HTW's influence using a well-designed, evidence-based approach. Furthermore, this pioneering work will clearly demonstrate the value of HTA to funders, commissioners, governments, and other decision-making bodies.
PP148 A Stakeholder-Informed Strategy For Effective Communication
- Lauren Elston, Ruth Louise Poole, Barbara Fraser, Ian Coldwell, Susan Myles
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 35 / Issue S1 / 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 31 December 2019, pp. 65-66
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
Effective communication is vital for engaging stakeholders in health technology assessment (HTA), as well as the successful dissemination and adoption of HTA research and guidance. As a relatively new organization, Health Technology Wales (HTW) has an ideal opportunity to take an effective, strategic approach to communication and stakeholder engagement from the outset.
MethodsHTW commissioned Pagoda Public Relations to develop an informed communications strategy and delivery framework. The strategy used OASIS methodology for public relations planning: Objectives, Audience insight, Strategy, Implementation, and Scoring (evaluation). Initial objectives were developed with input from the HTW team and members of the HTW Assessment Group and Appraisal Panel. Stakeholder insights were collected through an online survey and telephone interviews. These insights were used to inform the communications strategy and framework, outlining key audiences, key messages, communication objectives, methods, tactics, and evaluations.
ResultsSeven key objectives were identified, each of which were supported by recommended actions. These were underpinned by the key aims and messages reflecting how we will achieve these objectives. National Health Service boards, government, clinicians, the technology and research sector, patients, and the general public were identified as priority audiences. Various different communication channels and activities were identified, aimed at various audiences. These included the website, social media, traditional media, and exhibitions or workshops, as well as targeted e-mail dissemination of guidance. Evaluation of HTW communications will be aligned with the wider HTW evaluation strategy, and evidence will be recorded through OutNav software (Matter of Focus Ltd).
ConclusionsHTW is committed to a strategic, effective approach to communication and engagement. We now have an audience-informed communications strategy and plan that outlines our key objectives, and how to achieve and evaluate these objectives. Successful implementation will raise awareness of and value in profile and outputs of HTW, both in Wales and internationally.
PP124 Smart Capability Building For Effective Patient Involvement
- Claire Davis, Sophie Hughes, Susan Myles
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 35 / Issue S1 / 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 31 December 2019, pp. 59-60
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction
A new Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agency, Health Technology Wales (HTW), has been established to consider the identification, appraisal, and adoption of non-medicine health technologies. This includes, for example, medical devices, surgical procedures and diagnostics. HTW recognizes the importance of effective patient and public involvement (PPI) and is building smart capabilities.
MethodsHTW consulted with external organizations to identify the first steps toward effective PPI. Public partners were recruited as a priority before working together on a PPI strategy. Building smart capabilities is key to establishing effective PPI and future-proofing. HTW established a PPI Standing Group to inform HTW throughout its work, including the development of processes and procedures.
ResultsKnowledge and resources have been shared and future collaborations identified, including events to encourage new topics from patients and the public. The HTW PPI lead has become a member of key PPI groups, locally and internationally. HTW has recruited public partners who are actively contributing as full members of the Assessment Group and the Appraisal Panel; two members on each Committee. The PPI Standing Group has been established. They have provided advice and co-produced PPI tools for piloting.
ConclusionsThe PPI Standing Group concluded that PPI methods and approaches should be tailored for each project based on best practice, and should be piloted to allow them to evolve based on impact evaluation. A PPI strategy or framework would be more useful at a later stage. HTW is committed to identifying and following best practice. Future-proofing and building smart capability will be key to ensuring that HTW develops effective PPI that can be dynamic and responsive to the evolving PPI and HTA landscapes.
OP37 Health Technology Assessment Impact Assessment: Barriers And Enablers Perceived By Members Of The International Network Of Agencies For Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA)
- Nadine Berndt, Tara Schuller, Alicia Aleman, Karen Macpherson, Susan Myles, Matthias Perleth, Sophie Werkö, David Hailey
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 34 / Issue S1 / 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 03 January 2019, pp. 14-15
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies wish to ensure the impact of their HTAs. HTA impact assessment measures the influence of a HTA on decision-making and downstream to patient outcomes. Despite their potential to provide insights, the use of impact assessment frameworks by HTA agencies is limited. Understanding the underlying mechanisms of adopting HTA impact assessment frameworks is therefore important. Using a social cognitions lens, this study aims to provide insights into the enabling and hindering factors associated with the assessment of HTA impact by INAHTA members.
Methods:Using an interpretive description design, this cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews of INAHTA members to gain insight into attitudes, social support, self-efficacy, barriers, and intentions towards HTA impact assessment. Transcriptions were analyzed using a social cognitions lens by two researchers using a constant comparative method to identify themes.
Results:Twenty-six of forty-seven INAHTA members participated. Preliminary results showed that interviewees most often perceived support for assessing impact from their ministry of health or from agency staff. Most interviewees noted challenges to measuring impact at the right time and a lack of human resources, methods, and tools as internal barriers. A lack of transparency and a limited impact assessment culture were perceived as the main external barriers. Interviewees reported feeling fairly confident in overcoming internal barriers, but were less confident in overcoming external barriers. Providing feedback for improvement to HTA processes and making achievements visible were the most frequently reported advantages of assessing impact, whereas its time consuming nature was the biggest disadvantage.
Conclusions:This is the first study to use a social cognitions model to understand HTA impact assessment. Although the results of this convenience sample need to be interpreted with caution, they contribute knowledge on factors that facilitate and hinder agencies in the assessment of impact and illuminate opportunities for developing effective strategies to support HTA agencies in this area.
Working Memory and Attention Influence Antisaccade Error Rate in Schizophrenia
- Elizabeth H.X. Thomas, Susan L. Rossell, Jessica B. Myles, Eric J. Tan, Erica Neill, Sean P. Carruthers, Philip J. Sumner, Kiymet Bozaoglu, Caroline Gurvich
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 25 / Issue 2 / February 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 18 December 2018, pp. 174-183
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objectives: Antisaccade error rate has been proposed to be one of the most promising endophenotypes for schizophrenia. Increased error rate in patients has been associated with working memory, attention and other executive function impairments. The relationship between antisaccade error rate and other neuropsychological processes in patients compared to healthy controls has not been explored in depth. This study aimed to replicate the finding of heightened antisaccade error rate in patients and determine which cognitive processes were most strongly associated with antisaccade error rate in both patients and controls. In addition, the study investigated whether different antisaccade task paradigms engage different cognitive processes. Methods: One hundred and ninety-one participants (54 patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder and 137 controls) completed the antisaccade task, which included both gap and step task parameters. Neuropsychological measures were obtained using the MCCB and the Stroop task. Results: The current study replicated a pronounced antisaccade error rate deficit in patients. In patients, working memory variance was most significantly associated with antisaccade errors made during the step condition, while attentional processes were most associated with errors made during the gap condition. In controls, overall global cognitive performance was most associated with antisaccade rates for both gap and step conditions. Conclusions: The current study demonstrates that in schizophrenia patients, but not controls, elevated antisaccade error rate is associated with attention and working memory, but not with global cognitive impairment or psychopathological processes. Our novel findings demonstrate that the gap and step conditions of the antisaccade task engage different cognitive processes. (JINS, 2019, 25, 174–183)
VP197 Sustainable Production Of Rapid Health Technology Assessments And Clinical Guidelines
- Karen Macpherson, Lorna Thompson, Susan Myles
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 33 / Issue S1 / 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 12 January 2018, pp. 241-242
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
INTRODUCTION:
With increasing resource pressures on health systems, rapid developments in innovative technologies and limited numbers of skilled assessors, there is a need to establish sustainable methods to provide advice on healthcare technologies for decision makers. The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) has been testing an approach of collaborative production of rapid Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) and adaptation of these locally. The Scottish Health Technologies Group (SHTG) participated in two collaborative and adaptation projects to test whether this could save time and resource, whilst providing a product as robust and relevant as if developed locally. Concurrently the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) has been exploring ways to develop clinical guidelines more efficiently, including the use of rapid HTAs to inform recommendations.
METHODS:Having established the relevance of the topics to NHS Scotland, SHTG participated as peer reviewers for EUnetHTA reviews on mitral valve repair and mechanical thrombectomy. On completion, SHTG summarized their content to fit with the well-accepted rapid review report format used in Scotland. Content was supplemented with a review of economic evidence, currently not included in the European reports, local epidemiological information and recently published studies. The thrombectomy report and associated Advice Statement were used by a small expert group to update a SIGN clinical guideline recommendation.
RESULTS:Providing advice through adaptation proved feasible and acceptable to stakeholders. Limited time was saved because of the supplementary work undertaken, and lessons have been learned about what should and should not be done in future .The guideline recommendation was updated and made available more quickly than similar previous updates.
CONCLUSIONS:Further such collaborations and adaptations will be pursued as this appears to be a sustainable approach for the future. The process could be aided by EUnetHTA publishing forward work plans and also by the inclusion of economic information, with details of the decision-making context provided, to allow assessment of its relevance locally.
INFLUENCE OF HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND ITS MEASUREMENT
- David Hailey, Sophie Werkö, Måns Rosén, Karen Macpherson, Susan Myles, Verónica Gallegos Rivero, Cecilia Hipólito-Olivares, Sinikka Sihvo, Jasmine Pwu, Wen-Wen Yang, Yong-Chen Chen, Ana Perez Galán, Alicia Aleman, Elena Villamil
-
- Journal:
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 32 / Issue 6 / 2016
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 January 2017, pp. 376-384
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objectives: The aim of this study was to obtain information on methods used to measure health technology assessment (HTA) influence, decisions that were influenced, and outcomes linked to HTA.
Methods: Electronic databases were used to locate studies in which HTA influence had been demonstrated. Inclusion criteria were studies that reliably reported consideration by decision makers of HTA findings; comparative studies of technology use before and after HTA; and details of changes in policy, health outcomes, or research that could be credibly linked to an HTA.
Results: Fifty-one studies were selected for review. Settings were national (24), regional (12), both national and regional (3) hospitals (9), and multinational (3). The most common approach to appraisal of influence was review of policy or administrative decisions following HTA recommendations (51 percent). Eighteen studies (35 percent) reported interview or survey findings, thirteen (26 percent) reviewed administrative data, and six considered the influence of primary studies. Of 142 decisions informed by HTA, the most common types were on routine clinical practice (67 percent of studies), coverage (63 percent), and program operation (37 percent). The most frequent indications of HTA influence were on decisions related to resource allocation (59 percent), change in practice pattern (31 percent), and incorporation of HTA details in reference material (18 percent). Few publications assessed the contribution of HTA to changing patient outcomes.
Conclusions: The literature on HTA influence remains limited, with little on longer term effects on practice and outcomes. The reviewed publications indicated how HTA is being used in different settings and approaches to measuring its influence that might be more widely applied, such as surveys and monitoring administrative data.
Contributors
-
- By Mitchell Aboulafia, Frederick Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, Robert M. Adams, Laird Addis, James W. Allard, David Allison, William P. Alston, Karl Ameriks, C. Anthony Anderson, David Leech Anderson, Lanier Anderson, Roger Ariew, David Armstrong, Denis G. Arnold, E. J. Ashworth, Margaret Atherton, Robin Attfield, Bruce Aune, Edward Wilson Averill, Jody Azzouni, Kent Bach, Andrew Bailey, Lynne Rudder Baker, Thomas R. Baldwin, Jon Barwise, George Bealer, William Bechtel, Lawrence C. Becker, Mark A. Bedau, Ernst Behler, José A. Benardete, Ermanno Bencivenga, Jan Berg, Michael Bergmann, Robert L. Bernasconi, Sven Bernecker, Bernard Berofsky, Rod Bertolet, Charles J. Beyer, Christian Beyer, Joseph Bien, Joseph Bien, Peg Birmingham, Ivan Boh, James Bohman, Daniel Bonevac, Laurence BonJour, William J. Bouwsma, Raymond D. Bradley, Myles Brand, Richard B. Brandt, Michael E. Bratman, Stephen E. Braude, Daniel Breazeale, Angela Breitenbach, Jason Bridges, David O. Brink, Gordon G. Brittan, Justin Broackes, Dan W. Brock, Aaron Bronfman, Jeffrey E. Brower, Bartosz Brozek, Anthony Brueckner, Jeffrey Bub, Lara Buchak, Otavio Bueno, Ann E. Bumpus, Robert W. Burch, John Burgess, Arthur W. Burks, Panayot Butchvarov, Robert E. Butts, Marina Bykova, Patrick Byrne, David Carr, Noël Carroll, Edward S. Casey, Victor Caston, Victor Caston, Albert Casullo, Robert L. Causey, Alan K. L. Chan, Ruth Chang, Deen K. Chatterjee, Andrew Chignell, Roderick M. Chisholm, Kelly J. Clark, E. J. Coffman, Robin Collins, Brian P. Copenhaver, John Corcoran, John Cottingham, Roger Crisp, Frederick J. Crosson, Antonio S. Cua, Phillip D. Cummins, Martin Curd, Adam Cureton, Andrew Cutrofello, Stephen Darwall, Paul Sheldon Davies, Wayne A. Davis, Timothy Joseph Day, Claudio de Almeida, Mario De Caro, Mario De Caro, John Deigh, C. F. Delaney, Daniel C. Dennett, Michael R. DePaul, Michael Detlefsen, Daniel Trent Devereux, Philip E. Devine, John M. Dillon, Martin C. Dillon, Robert DiSalle, Mary Domski, Alan Donagan, Paul Draper, Fred Dretske, Mircea Dumitru, Wilhelm Dupré, Gerald Dworkin, John Earman, Ellery Eells, Catherine Z. Elgin, Berent Enç, Ronald P. Endicott, Edward Erwin, John Etchemendy, C. Stephen Evans, Susan L. Feagin, Solomon Feferman, Richard Feldman, Arthur Fine, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, William FitzPatrick, Richard E. Flathman, Gvozden Flego, Richard Foley, Graeme Forbes, Rainer Forst, Malcolm R. Forster, Daniel Fouke, Patrick Francken, Samuel Freeman, Elizabeth Fricker, Miranda Fricker, Michael Friedman, Michael Fuerstein, Richard A. Fumerton, Alan Gabbey, Pieranna Garavaso, Daniel Garber, Jorge L. A. Garcia, Robert K. Garcia, Don Garrett, Philip Gasper, Gerald Gaus, Berys Gaut, Bernard Gert, Roger F. Gibson, Cody Gilmore, Carl Ginet, Alan H. Goldman, Alvin I. Goldman, Alfonso Gömez-Lobo, Lenn E. Goodman, Robert M. Gordon, Stefan Gosepath, Jorge J. E. Gracia, Daniel W. Graham, George A. Graham, Peter J. Graham, Richard E. Grandy, I. Grattan-Guinness, John Greco, Philip T. Grier, Nicholas Griffin, Nicholas Griffin, David A. Griffiths, Paul J. Griffiths, Stephen R. Grimm, Charles L. Griswold, Charles B. Guignon, Pete A. Y. Gunter, Dimitri Gutas, Gary Gutting, Paul Guyer, Kwame Gyekye, Oscar A. Haac, Raul Hakli, Raul Hakli, Michael Hallett, Edward C. Halper, Jean Hampton, R. James Hankinson, K. R. Hanley, Russell Hardin, Robert M. Harnish, William Harper, David Harrah, Kevin Hart, Ali Hasan, William Hasker, John Haugeland, Roger Hausheer, William Heald, Peter Heath, Richard Heck, John F. Heil, Vincent F. Hendricks, Stephen Hetherington, Francis Heylighen, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Risto Hilpinen, Harold T. Hodes, Joshua Hoffman, Alan Holland, Robert L. Holmes, Richard Holton, Brad W. Hooker, Terence E. Horgan, Tamara Horowitz, Paul Horwich, Vittorio Hösle, Paul Hoβfeld, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Frances Howard-Snyder, Anne Hudson, Deal W. Hudson, Carl A. Huffman, David L. Hull, Patricia Huntington, Thomas Hurka, Paul Hurley, Rosalind Hursthouse, Guillermo Hurtado, Ronald E. Hustwit, Sarah Hutton, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, Harry A. Ide, David Ingram, Philip J. Ivanhoe, Alfred L. Ivry, Frank Jackson, Dale Jacquette, Joseph Jedwab, Richard Jeffrey, David Alan Johnson, Edward Johnson, Mark D. Jordan, Richard Joyce, Hwa Yol Jung, Robert Hillary Kane, Tomis Kapitan, Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, James A. Keller, Ralph Kennedy, Sergei Khoruzhii, Jaegwon Kim, Yersu Kim, Nathan L. King, Patricia Kitcher, Peter D. Klein, E. D. Klemke, Virginia Klenk, George L. Kline, Christian Klotz, Simo Knuuttila, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Konstantin Kolenda, Sebastian Tomasz Kołodziejczyk, Isaac Kramnick, Richard Kraut, Fred Kroon, Manfred Kuehn, Steven T. Kuhn, Henry E. Kyburg, John Lachs, Jennifer Lackey, Stephen E. Lahey, Andrea Lavazza, Thomas H. Leahey, Joo Heung Lee, Keith Lehrer, Dorothy Leland, Noah M. Lemos, Ernest LePore, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Isaac Levi, Andrew Levine, Alan E. Lewis, Daniel E. Little, Shu-hsien Liu, Shu-hsien Liu, Alan K. L. Chan, Brian Loar, Lawrence B. Lombard, John Longeway, Dominic McIver Lopes, Michael J. Loux, E. J. Lowe, Steven Luper, Eugene C. Luschei, William G. Lycan, David Lyons, David Macarthur, Danielle Macbeth, Scott MacDonald, Jacob L. Mackey, Louis H. Mackey, Penelope Mackie, Edward H. Madden, Penelope Maddy, G. B. Madison, Bernd Magnus, Pekka Mäkelä, Rudolf A. Makkreel, David Manley, William E. Mann (W.E.M.), Vladimir Marchenkov, Peter Markie, Jean-Pierre Marquis, Ausonio Marras, Mike W. Martin, A. P. Martinich, William L. McBride, David McCabe, Storrs McCall, Hugh J. McCann, Robert N. McCauley, John J. McDermott, Sarah McGrath, Ralph McInerny, Daniel J. McKaughan, Thomas McKay, Michael McKinsey, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ernan McMullin, Anthonie Meijers, Jack W. Meiland, William Jason Melanson, Alfred R. Mele, Joseph R. Mendola, Christopher Menzel, Michael J. Meyer, Christian B. Miller, David W. Miller, Peter Millican, Robert N. Minor, Phillip Mitsis, James A. Montmarquet, Michael S. Moore, Tim Moore, Benjamin Morison, Donald R. Morrison, Stephen J. Morse, Paul K. Moser, Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, Ian Mueller, James Bernard Murphy, Mark C. Murphy, Steven Nadler, Jan Narveson, Alan Nelson, Jerome Neu, Samuel Newlands, Kai Nielsen, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Carlos G. Noreña, Calvin G. Normore, David Fate Norton, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Donald Nute, David S. Oderberg, Steve Odin, Michael O’Rourke, Willard G. Oxtoby, Heinz Paetzold, George S. Pappas, Anthony J. Parel, Lydia Patton, R. P. Peerenboom, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Adriaan T. Peperzak, Derk Pereboom, Jaroslav Peregrin, Glen Pettigrove, Philip Pettit, Edmund L. Pincoffs, Andrew Pinsent, Robert B. Pippin, Alvin Plantinga, Louis P. Pojman, Richard H. Popkin, John F. Post, Carl J. Posy, William J. Prior, Richard Purtill, Michael Quante, Philip L. Quinn, Philip L. Quinn, Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Diana Raffman, Gerard Raulet, Stephen L. Read, Andrews Reath, Andrew Reisner, Nicholas Rescher, Henry S. Richardson, Robert C. Richardson, Thomas Ricketts, Wayne D. Riggs, Mark Roberts, Robert C. Roberts, Luke Robinson, Alexander Rosenberg, Gary Rosenkranz, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, Adina L. Roskies, William L. Rowe, T. M. Rudavsky, Michael Ruse, Bruce Russell, Lilly-Marlene Russow, Dan Ryder, R. M. Sainsbury, Joseph Salerno, Nathan Salmon, Wesley C. Salmon, Constantine Sandis, David H. Sanford, Marco Santambrogio, David Sapire, Ruth A. Saunders, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Charles Sayward, James P. Scanlan, Richard Schacht, Tamar Schapiro, Frederick F. Schmitt, Jerome B. Schneewind, Calvin O. Schrag, Alan D. Schrift, George F. Schumm, Jean-Loup Seban, David N. Sedley, Kenneth Seeskin, Krister Segerberg, Charlene Haddock Seigfried, Dennis M. Senchuk, James F. Sennett, William Lad Sessions, Stewart Shapiro, Tommie Shelby, Donald W. Sherburne, Christopher Shields, Roger A. Shiner, Sydney Shoemaker, Robert K. Shope, Kwong-loi Shun, Wilfried Sieg, A. John Simmons, Robert L. Simon, Marcus G. Singer, Georgette Sinkler, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Matti T. Sintonen, Lawrence Sklar, Brian Skyrms, Robert C. Sleigh, Michael Anthony Slote, Hans Sluga, Barry Smith, Michael Smith, Robin Smith, Robert Sokolowski, Robert C. Solomon, Marta Soniewicka, Philip Soper, Ernest Sosa, Nicholas Southwood, Paul Vincent Spade, T. L. S. Sprigge, Eric O. Springsted, George J. Stack, Rebecca Stangl, Jason Stanley, Florian Steinberger, Sören Stenlund, Christopher Stephens, James P. Sterba, Josef Stern, Matthias Steup, M. A. Stewart, Leopold Stubenberg, Edith Dudley Sulla, Frederick Suppe, Jere Paul Surber, David George Sussman, Sigrún Svavarsdóttir, Zeno G. Swijtink, Richard Swinburne, Charles C. Taliaferro, Robert B. Talisse, John Tasioulas, Paul Teller, Larry S. Temkin, Mark Textor, H. S. Thayer, Peter Thielke, Alan Thomas, Amie L. Thomasson, Katherine Thomson-Jones, Joshua C. Thurow, Vzalerie Tiberius, Terrence N. Tice, Paul Tidman, Mark C. Timmons, William Tolhurst, James E. Tomberlin, Rosemarie Tong, Lawrence Torcello, Kelly Trogdon, J. D. Trout, Robert E. Tully, Raimo Tuomela, John Turri, Martin M. Tweedale, Thomas Uebel, Jennifer Uleman, James Van Cleve, Harry van der Linden, Peter van Inwagen, Bryan W. Van Norden, René van Woudenberg, Donald Phillip Verene, Samantha Vice, Thomas Vinci, Donald Wayne Viney, Barbara Von Eckardt, Peter B. M. Vranas, Steven J. Wagner, William J. Wainwright, Paul E. Walker, Robert E. Wall, Craig Walton, Douglas Walton, Eric Watkins, Richard A. Watson, Michael V. Wedin, Rudolph H. Weingartner, Paul Weirich, Paul J. Weithman, Carl Wellman, Howard Wettstein, Samuel C. Wheeler, Stephen A. White, Jennifer Whiting, Edward R. Wierenga, Michael Williams, Fred Wilson, W. Kent Wilson, Kenneth P. Winkler, John F. Wippel, Jan Woleński, Allan B. Wolter, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Rega Wood, W. Jay Wood, Paul Woodruff, Alison Wylie, Gideon Yaffe, Takashi Yagisawa, Yutaka Yamamoto, Keith E. Yandell, Xiaomei Yang, Dean Zimmerman, Günter Zoller, Catherine Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, Jack A. Zupko (J.A.Z.)
- Edited by Robert Audi, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- Published online:
- 05 August 2015
- Print publication:
- 27 April 2015, pp ix-xxx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation