Cited by 27Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeDelphi Technique in ResearchTechnology Assessment and Management

Current status of health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: survey and key informant interviews

Open access
Leggett, Laura E, Mackean, Gail, Noseworthy, Tom W, Sutherland, Lloyd, Clement, Fiona·2012·Health Research Policy and Systems

Abstract

Background: Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) is a structured, evidence-based assessment of the clinical, social, ethical and economic effects of a technology currently used in the health care system, to inform optimal use of that technology in comparison to its alternatives. Little is known about current international HTR practices. The objective of this research was to summarize experience-based information gathered from international experts on the development, initiation and implementation of a HTR program. Methods: A mixed methods approach, using a survey and in-depth interviews, was adopted. The survey covered 8 concepts: prioritization/identification of potentially obsolete technologies; program development; implementation; mitigation; program championing; stakeholder engagement; monitoring; and reinvestment. Members of Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) formed the sampling frame. Participation was solicited via email and the survey was administered online using SurveyMonkey. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. To gather more in-depth knowledge, semi-structured interviews were conducted among organizations with active HTR programs. Interview questions were developed using the same 8 concepts. The hour-long interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using constant comparative analysis. Results: Ninety-five individuals responded to the survey: 49 were not discussing HTR, 21 were beginning to discuss HTR, nine were imminently developing a program, and 16 participants had programs and were completing reassessments. The survey results revealed that methods vary widely and that although HTR is a powerful tool, it is currently not being used to its full potential. Of the 16 with active programs, nine agreed to participate in follow-up interviews. Interview participants identified early and extensive stakeholder engagement as the most important factors for success. A lack of top-down support and financial and human resources are inhibiting program development. Discussion: HTR is in its infancy. Although HTRs are being conducted, there are no standardized approaches. However, much can be learned from current international work. Future work should focus on developing a comprehensive methodology, reporting the processes of reassessments and sharing successes and challenges in a common platform.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1478-4505-10-38

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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: 6

  1. Noseworthy T Clement FM Health technology reassessment: scope, methodology and language Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012 28 3 201 202 10.1017/S0266462312000359 22980695 · DOI
  2. Elshaug AG Hiller JE Moss JR Exploring policy-makers perspectives on disinvestment from ineffective healthcare practices Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008 24 1 9 18218163
  3. Leggett LE Noseworthy T Zarrabi M Lorenzetti D Sutherland L Clement F Health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: current practices Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012 28 3 220 227 10.1017/S0266462312000438 22980697 · DOI
  4. Elshaug AG Hiller JE Tunis SR Moss JR Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices Aust New Zealand Health Policy 2007 4 23 10.1186/1743-8462-4-23 17973993 PMC2174492 · DOI
  5. Cooper C Starkey K Disinvestment in health care BMJ 2010 340 c1413 http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1413.extract 10.1136/bmj.c1413 · DOI
  6. Metropolitan Health and Aged Care Services Division Future Directions for Health Technology Uptake, Diffusion and Disinvestment in Victorian Public Health Services: Department of Human Services Workship Discussion Paper 2007 http://www.health.vic.gov.au/newtech/documents/new-tech-workshop-discussion.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leggett, L. E., Mackean, G., Noseworthy, T. W., Sutherland, L., & Clement, F.
Affiliations
University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Clement, Fiona
Venue
Health Research Policy and Systems
Published
2012-12
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
38-38
ISSN
1478-4505 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171509311
Cited by
27
References
0
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Research Policy and Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Technology Assessment and Management
Keywords
stakeholder engagement, program implementation, health technology assessment
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Program Development, Biomedical Technology, Internationality

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