Oortwijn, W., Jansen, M., Baltussen, R. (2020). Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around The Globe. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 9(1), 27-33. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2019.72
Wija Oortwijn; Maarten Jansen; Rob Baltussen. "Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around The Globe". International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 9, 1, 2020, 27-33. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2019.72
Oortwijn, W., Jansen, M., Baltussen, R. (2020). 'Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around The Globe', International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 9(1), pp. 27-33. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2019.72
Oortwijn, W., Jansen, M., Baltussen, R. Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around The Globe. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 2020; 9(1): 27-33. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2019.72
Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around The Globe
Department for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Abstract
Background Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were recently introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes towards more legitimate decision-making. The EDP framework provides guidance that covers the HTA process, ie, contextual factors, installation of an appraisal committee, selecting health technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, and communication and appeal. The aims of this study were to identify the level of use of EDPs by HTA agencies, identify their needs for guidance, and to learn about best practices.
Methods A questionnaire for an online survey was developed based on the EDP framework, consisting of elements that reflect each part of the framework. The survey was sent to members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Two weeks following the invitation, a reminder was sent. The data collection took place between September-December 2018.
Results Contact persons from 27 member agencies filled out the survey (response rate: 54%), of which 25 completed all questions. We found that contextual factors to support HTA development and the critical elements regarding conducting and reporting on HTA are overall in place. Respondents indicated that guidance was needed for specific elements related to selecting technologies and criteria, appraisal, and communication and appeal. With regard to best practices, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, UK) were most often mentioned.
Conclusion This is the first survey among HTA agencies regarding the use of EDPs and provides useful information for further developing a practical guide for HTA agencies around the globe. The results could support HTA agencies in improving their processes towards more legitimate decision-making, as they could serve as a baseline measurement for future monitoring and evaluation.
Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes – Learning by Doing; Comment on “Use of Evidence-informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe”
Børlum Kristensen F, Husereau D, Huić M, et al. Identifying the need for good practices in health technology assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA. Value in Health. 2019;22(1):13-20. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.010
Baltussen R, Jansen PMJ, Bijlmakers L, et al. Value assessment frameworks for HTA agencies: the organization of evidence-informed deliberative processes. Value Health. 2017;20(2):256-260. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.019.v
Oortwijn W, Determann D, Schiffers K, et al. Towards integrated health technology assessment for improving decision-making in selected countries. Value Health. 2017;20(8):1121-1130. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.03.011
Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, et al. Deliberations about Deliberative Methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(2):239-251. doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00343-x
Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments BMJ. 2004;329:224. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7459.224
Culyer AJ, Lomas J. Deliberative processes and evidence-informed decision making in healthcare: do they work and how might we know? Evid Policy. 2006;2(3):357-371. doi:10.1332/174426406778023658
Baltussen R, Jansen M, Bijlmakers L. Stakeholder participation on the path to universal health coverage: the use of evidence-informed deliberative processes. Trop Med Int Health. 2018;23(10):1071-1074. doi:10.1111/tmi.13138
Chalkidou K, Li R, Culyer T, et al. Health technology assessment: global advocacy and local realities; Comment on “Priority setting for universal health coverage: we need evidence-informed deliberative processes, not just more evidence on cost-effectiveness.” Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(4):233-236. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2016.118
Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes. A practical guide for HTA agencies to enhance legitimate decision-making. Version 1.0. Nijmegen: Radboud University Medical Centre, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; 2019. https://www.radboudumc.nl/revise-hta.
Hailey D, Werkö S, Bakri R, et al. Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by INAHTA agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013; 29(1):79-83. doi:10.1017/S026646231200075X
Merlin T, Tamblyn D, Ellery B. What’s in a name? Developing definitions for common health technology assessment product types of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(4):430-437. doi:10.1017/S0266462314000543
Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
Jansen MPM, Baltussen R, Bærøe K. Stakeholder Participation for Legitimate Priority Setting: A Checklist. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(11):973-976. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2018.57
Baltussen R, Thokala P, Marsh K, et al. Multi criteria decision analysis to support HTA agencies – benefits, limitations and the way forward. Value in Health. 2019; In Press.
Chalkidou K, Glassman A, Marten R, et al. Priority-setting for achieving universal health coverage. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94:462-467. doi:10.2471/BLT.15.155721
Glassman A, Giedion U, Sakuma Y, et al. Defining a health benefits package: what are the necessary processes? Health Syst Reform. 2016;2(1):39-50. doi:10.1080/23288604.201 6.1124171
Pichon-Riviere A, Soto N, Augustovski F, et al. Health technology assessment for decision making in Latin America: good practice principles. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34(3):241-247. doi:10.1017/S0266462318000326
Pichon-Riviere A, Soto N, Augustovski F, et al. Stakeholder involvement in the health technology assessment process in Latin America. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34(3):248-253. doi:10.1017/S0266462318000302
Neumann P, Drummond M, Jönsson B, et al. Are Key Principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(1):71-78. doi:10.1017/S0266462309990833
Top