Disinvestment Activities and Candidates in the Health Technology Assessment Community: An Online Survey
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: As healthcare decision makers continue to face challenges in health services delivery to their patients, disinvestment programs are being established for a sustainable healthcare system. This study aimed to collect data and information by means of a survey of disinvestment candidates and ongoing disinvestment projects in the health technology assessment (HTA) community. Methods: An online survey was conducted to collect information on disinvestment candidates and activities from members of the Health Technology Assessment International Disinvestment & Early Awareness Interest Group, the EuroScan International Network and International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Results: Among the 362 invitees, twenty-four unique responses were received, and almost 70 percent were involved in disinvestment initiatives. The disinvestment candidates identified represented a range of health technologies. Evidence or signaling of clinical ineffectiveness or inappropriate use typically led to the nomination of disinvestment candidates. Health technology assessments and reassessments were usually conducted to evaluate the technology in question, and decisions usually led to the limited use of the technology. Barriers to disinvestment decisions included the strength of interest and advocacy groups, insufficient data for assessments, a systematic decision process and political challenges, while obstacles to their implementation were clinicians’ reluctance and insufficient funding and incentives. Conclusions: The survey results suggested that disinvestment activities are occurring in the HTA community, especially in the public sector. Future research can further investigate the processes and methods used to reach and implement disinvestment decisions from our survey respondents and explore to form closer ties between the HTA and clinical communities.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
International literature describes active disinvestment as a very difficult process, hampered by contextual aspects such as political barriers, a lack of dedicated resources, and disinvestment being considered counter-cultural.
“In the international literature, active disinvestment has been described as a very difficult process [21], hampered by contextual aspects such as political barriers [22, 23], a lack of dedicated resources [22], and disinvestment being considered counter-cultural [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 [23]
It has been suggested that qualitative studies are needed to obtain more insight into the difficult process of active disinvestment.
“Furthermore, it has been suggested that, in order to obtain more insight into this difficult process, qualitative studies are needed [23].”
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 [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Chambers J, Salem M, D'Cruz B, Subedi P, Kamal-Bahl S, Neumann P (2017) A review of empirical analyses of disinvestment initiatives. Value Health 20, 909-918.
- Agirrezabal I, Burgon J, Stewart G, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea I (2017) Status of disinvestment initiatives in Latin America: Results from a systematic lit- erature review and questionnaire. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 33, 674-680.
- De Pietro C, Camenzind P, Sturny I, et al. (2015) Switzerland: Health system review. Health Syst Transit 17, 1-288.
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
- Polisena, J., Trunk, G., Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I., & Joppi, R.
- Affiliations
- Canada's Drug Agency (CA)
- Federal Office of Public Health (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Polisena, Julie
- Venue
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2019
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 189-194
- ISSN
- 0266-4623 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6348
- OpenAlex
- W2942344870
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 1.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- INFM-OAR (INFN Catania) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Health Technology Assessment international
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare cost, quality, practices
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
- Keywords
- divestiture, health technology assessment, advocacy organizations, health policy decision-making, sustainable health systems
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Organizational, Humans, Politics, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Resource Allocation
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