Cited by 32Healthcare cost, quality, practicesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeClinical practice guidelines implementation

DISINVESTING FROM INEFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: LESSONS LEARNED FROM CURRENT PROGRAMS

Mayer, Julia, Nachtnebel, Anna·2015·International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

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Many of the currently used health technologies have never been systematically assessed or are misused, overused or superseded.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

Crossref · 10.1017/s0266462315000641

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mayer, J., & Nachtnebel, A.
Affiliations
Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH (AT)
Venue
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
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