DISINVESTING FROM INEFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: LESSONS LEARNED FROM CURRENT PROGRAMS
Abstract
Objectives: Many of the currently used health technologies have never been systematically assessed or are misused, overused or superseded. Therefore, they may be ineffective. Active identification of ineffectiveness in health care is gaining importance to facilitate best care for patients and optimal use of limited resources. The present research analyzed processes and experiences of programs for identifying ineffective health technologies. The goal of this study was to elucidate factors that facilitate implementation. Methods: Based on an overview article, a systematic literature search and unsystematic hand-search were conducted. Further information was gained from international experts. Results: Seven programs were identified that include identification, prioritization and assessment of ineffective health technologies and dissemination of recommendations. The programs are quite similar regarding their goals, target groups and criteria for identification and prioritization. Outputs, mainly HTA reports or lists, are mostly disseminated by means of the internet. Top–down and bottom–up programs both have benefits in terms of implementation of recommendations, either as binding guidelines and decisions or as nonbinding information for physicians and other stakeholders. Crucial facilitators of implementation are political will, transparent processes and broad stakeholder involvement focusing on physicians. Conclusions: All programs can improve the quality of health care and enable cost reduction in supportive surrounding conditions. Physicians and patients must be continuously involved in the process of evaluating health technologies. Additionally, decision makers must support programs and translate recommendations into concrete actions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Minister has taken several decisions to exclude specific interventions from the basic benefits package, indicating that the assumption that existing interventions not meeting the package criteria will automatically be passively disinvested may not always hold.
“However, in recent years, the Minister has taken several decisions to exclude specific interventions from the basic benefits package, indicating that the assumption that existing interventions not meeting the package criteria anymore will automatically be (passively) disinvested may not always hold [17, 18].”
From What influences the outcome of active disinvestment processes in healthcare? A qualitative interview study on five recent cases of active disinvestment (2021) · cites this paper as [17]
Previous studies have described that it is considered very difficult to sufficiently organize broad stakeholder engagement.
“it is considered very difficult to sufficiently organize this [17, 22, 24].”
From What influences the outcome of active disinvestment processes in healthcare? A qualitative interview study on five recent cases of active disinvestment (2021) · cites this paper as [17]
A structured, evidence-based process has been described in a review from 2015 as a facilitator for (the implementation of) disinvestment.
“a structured, evidence-based process has been described in a review from 2015 as a facilitator for (the implementation of) disinvestment [17].”
From What influences the outcome of active disinvestment processes in healthcare? A qualitative interview study on five recent cases of active disinvestment (2021) · cites this paper as [17]
A lack of support from decision-makers has been described as a barrier to the implementation of disinvestment.
“a lack of support from decision-makers has been described as a barrier to the implementation of disinvestment [17].”
From What influences the outcome of active disinvestment processes in healthcare? A qualitative interview study on five recent cases of active disinvestment (2021) · cites this paper as [17]
Previous studies have described that broad stakeholder engagement is considered essential for the success of disinvestment.
“broad stakeholder engagement is considered essential for the success of disinvestment”
From What influences the outcome of active disinvestment processes in healthcare? A qualitative interview study on five recent cases of active disinvestment (2021) · cites this paper as [17]
Cites
Elshaug, A. G., McWilliams, J. M., & Landon, B. E. (2013) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2013.828 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rotteveel, A. H., Lambooij, M. S., van de Rijt, J. J. A., van Exel, J., Moons, K. G. M., & de Wit, G. A. (2021) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06298-3 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mayer, J., & Nachtnebel, A.
- Affiliations
- Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH (AT)
- Venue
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2015
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 355-362
- ISSN
- 0266-4623 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6348
- OpenAlex
- W2292999404
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 7.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- health technology assessment, implementation of recommendations, stakeholder engagement, physician participation, political will, transparency, cost reduction, quality of care
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Cost Control, Decision Making, Humans, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Organizational Policy, Efficiency, Organizational, Biomedical Technology, Quality Improvement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review