Current status of health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: survey and key informant interviews
Open accessAbstract
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.
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?
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 [22]
The Results (Key informant interviews results; page unavailable) identify difficulty communicating with varied audiences as an implementation barrier. The Discussion (page unavailable) recommends engaging stakeholders as extensively as resources allow. These passages support practical constraints on broad engagement, but do not say that organizing it is considered very difficult. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPrevious 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 [22]
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 [22]
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
Towards understanding the de-adoption of low-value clinical practices: a scoping review
Niven, D. J., Mrklas, K. J., Holodinsky, J. K., Straus, S. E., Hemmelgarn, B. R., Jeffs, L. P., & Stelfox, H. T. (2015) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0488-z · Cited by 369 · see citing works
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
- 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)
- PMC
- PMC3542085
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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