Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 310-315

  Noorani, Hussein Z ^a   Husereau, Donald R ^a   Boudreau, Rhonda ^a   Skidmore, Becky ^b  

^a CANADIAN AGENCY FOR DRUGS AND TECHNOLOGIES IN HEALTH   (Canada)

^b The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada   (Canada)

Author keywords

Health technology assessment; Prioritization; Priority setting

Indexed keywords

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; PRIORITIZATION; PRIORITY SETTING;

DISEASES; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; MEDICAL APPLICATIONS; PHYSIOLOGY; WEBSITES;

HEALTH CARE;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; BIOSIS; CANADA; COCHRANE LIBRARY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DENMARK; ECONOMICS; EMBASE; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUNGARY; ISRAEL; LEGAL ASPECT; LITERATURE; MEDLINE; NETHERLANDS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; SPAIN; SWEDEN; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HUMANS; POLICY MAKING; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 34250704659     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S026646230707050X     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Agence d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'intervention en santé. Selection of assessment topics. Montreal: Agence d'évaluation des technologies et des modes d'intervention en santé; 2006. Available at: http://www.aetmis. gouv.qc.ca/site/index.php? en evaluation selection. Accessed 11 March 2006.
2. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. EPC topic nomination and selection. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2005. Accessed 11 March 2006.
3. Banta DH, Andreasen PB. The politcal dimension in health care technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6:115-123.
4. Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment. The prioritisation of evaluation topics of health: Report. Donostia-San Sebastian: Osteba; 1996.
5. Borowski H. Alberta health technologies decision process: Selecting technologies for provincial review [oral presentation]. CCOHTA Invitational Symposium; 25 April 2005; Ottawa. Accessed 11 March 2006.
6. Borowski H. The Alberta health technologies decision process: A structure and process under development - early lessons [abstract]. Ital J Public Health. 2005;2:77.
7. Carlsson P. Health technology assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:44-54.
8. Chase D, Milne R, Stein K, Stevens A. What are the relative merits of the sources used to identify potential research priorities for the NHS HTA programme? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:743-750.
9. Davies L, Drummond M, Papanikolaou P. Prioritizing investments in health technology assessment. Can we assess potential value for money? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:73-91.
10. Donaldson MS, Sox HC. Setting priorities for health technology assessment: A model process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1992.
11. Douw K, Vondeling H. Selection of new health technologies for assessment aimed at informing decision making: A survey among horizon scanning systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:177-183.
12. Eddy DM. Selecting technologies for assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5:485-501.
13. Garcia-Altes A, Ondategui-Parra S, Neumann PJ. Cross-national comparison of technology assessment processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:300-310.
14. Gulácsi L, Boncz I, Drummond M. Issues for countries considering introducing the "fourth hurdle": The case of Hungary. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:337-341.
15. Hagenfeldt K, Asua J, Bellucci S, et al. Systems for routine information sharing in HTA. Working group 2 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:273-320.
16. Harper G, Townsend J, Buxton M. The preliminary economic evaluation of health technologies for the prioritization of health technology assessments. A discussion. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:652-662.
17. Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Stevens A, Granados A, Banta D. Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. A paper produced by the Priority Setting Subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:144-185.
18. Kohli H, Hutchens D. "Here's a good idea for a health technology assessment. . .": An analysis of health technology assessment topics proposed to the Health Technology Board for Scotland [abstract]. In: ISTAHC 2003. Improving outcomes through health technology assessment. Abstracts. 22 June 2003. p. 51.
19. Lara ME, Goodman C, editors. National priorities for the assessment of clinical conditions and medical technologies: Report of a pilot study [IOM Publication 89-14]. Washington: National Academy Press; 1990.
20. Medical Advisory Secretariat. The application process. Toronto: Medical Advisory Secretariat; 2006. Available at: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/ english/providers/program/mas/application/app mn.html. Accessed 11 March 2006.
21. NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme. Prioritising research. Southampton, UK: National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment; 2006.
22. Noorani H, Boudreau R, Skidmore B, Husereau D. Development of a new prioritization method for health technology assessment [oral presentation]. Melbourne. Abstract available at: http://www.cochrane.org/colloquia/abstracts/ melbourne/P-089.htm. Accessed 22 October 2005.
23. Oliver S, Milne R, Bradburn J, et al. Involving consumers in a needs-led research programme: A pilot project. Health Expect. 2001;4:18-28.
24. Oortwijn W, Banta D, Vondeling H, Bouter L. Identification and priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: Actors and activities. Health Policy. 1999;47:241-253.
25. Oortwijn WJ, Vondeling H, Bouter L. The use of societal criteria in priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands. Initial experiences and future challenges. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:226-236.
26. Oortwijn W, Vondeling H, van Barneveld T, van Vugt C, Bouter L. Priority setting for HTA in The Netherlands [abstract]. 16th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care; 18 June 2000; The Hague.
27. Oortwijn WJ, Vondeling H, van Barneveld T, van Vugt C, Bouter LM. Priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: Principles and practice. Health Policy. 2002;62:227-242.
28. Phelps CE, Parente ST. Priority setting in medical technology and medical practice assessment. Med Care. 1990;28:703-723.
29. Royle J, Oliver S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:493-497.
30. Shani S, Siebzehner MI, Luxenburg O, Shemer J. Setting priorities for the adoption of health technologies on a national level - The Israeli experience. Health Policy. 2000;54:169-185.
31. Stevens A, Milne R. Health technology assessment in England and Wales. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:11-24.
32. Townsend J, Buxton M, Harper G. Prioritisation of health technology assessment. The PATHS model: Methods and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1-94.