Assessing the performance of health technology assessment organizations: A framework

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 76-86

  Lafortune, Louise ^a,b   Farand, Lambert ^a   Mondou, Isabelle ^a,c   Sicotte, Claude ^a   Battista, Renaldo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b Department of Health Technology Assessment ^*

^c Laboratoire Interuniversitaire des Sciences de l'Education et de la Communication

Author keywords

Evaluation; Health technology assessment; HTA agency; Organizational performance; Theoretical models

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HTA AGENCY; ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE; THEORETICAL MODELS;

HEALTH CARE;

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; EVALUATION; GOAL ATTAINMENT; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; THEORETICAL MODEL;

DECISION MAKING; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; QUEBEC; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 38549138311     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462307080105     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Agència d'Avaluacio de Technologica i Recerca Mèdiques (AATRM) Annual Report 2004. Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona; CatSalut. Departamente de Sanitat i Seguretat Social; 2005.
2. Banta D, Oortwijn W. Conclusion: Health technology assessment and health care in the European Union. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:626-635.
3. Banta D, Jonsson B. Commentary on: Expanding the scientific basis of health technology assessment: A research agenda for the next decade. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:280-283.
4. Banta D, Oortwijn W. Health technology assessment in the European Union. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:299-635.
5. Battista RN. Expanding the scientific basis of health technology assessment: A research agenda for the next decade. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:275-280.
6. Battista RN, Feeny DH, Hodge MJ. Evaluation of the Canadian coordinating office for health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995;11:102-116.
7. Battista RN, Lance JM, Lehoux P, et al. Health technology assessment and the regulation of medical devices and procedures in Quebec: Synergy, collusion, or collision? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:593-601.
8. Bennis WG. Toward a truly scientific management: The concept of organization health in changing organizations. New York: Society for Organizational Learning; 1966.
9. Benson JK. The organizational network as a political economy. Adm Sci Q. 1975;20:229-249.
10. Black N. Public accountability: One rule for practitioners, one for scientists? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001;6:131-132.
11. Black N. Evidence based policy: Proceed with care. Br Med J. 2001;323:275-279.
12. Blancquaert I. Managing partnerships and impact on decision-making: The example of health technology assessment in genetics. Community Genet. 2006;9:27-33.
13. Berg M, Van Der Grinten T, Klazinga N. Technology assessment, priority setting, and appropriate care in Dutch health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:35-43.
14. Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments: Working group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361-422.
15. Bodeau-Livinec F, Simon E, Montagnier-Petrissans C, et al. Impact of CEDIT recommendations: An example of health technology assessment in a hospital network. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:161-168.
16. Brown N, Micheal M. From authority to authenticity: Governance, transparency and biotechnology. Health Risks Soc. 2002;4:259-272.
17. Cameron K. Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Manage Sci. 1986;32:539-553.
18. Carlsson P, Jorgensen T. Scanning the horizon for emerging health technologies: Conclusions from a European workshop. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:695-704.
19. Chinitz D. Health technology assessment in four countries: Response from political science. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:55-60.
20. Cole DC, Robson LS, Lemieux-Charles L, et al. Quality of working life indicators in Canadian health care organizations: A tool for healthy, health care workplaces? Occup Med (Lond). 2005;55:54-59.
21. Cookson R, Maynard A. Health technology assessment in Europe: Improving clarity and performance. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:639-650.
22. Coulter A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: Response from the patient's perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:92-96.
23. Culyer AJ. Involving stakeholders in healthcare decisions - the experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales. Healthc Q. 2005;8:56-60.
24. Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA). External evaluation of DACEHTA. Copenhagen: National Board of Health; 2003.
25. 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.
26. Davies HTO, Nutley SM. Developing learning organizations in the new NHS. Br Med J. 2000;320:998-1001.
27. Dixon S, Coleman P, Nicholl J, et al. Evaluation of the impact of a technology appraisal process in England: The South and West Development and Evaluation Committee. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8:18-24.
28. Dodgson M. Organizational learning: A review of some literature. Organisational Studies. 1993;14:375-394.
29. Douw K, Vondeling H, Oortwijn W. Priority setting for horizon scanning of new health technologies in Denmark: Views of health care stakeholders and health economists. Health Policy. 2006;76:334-345.
30. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, et al. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:89-95.
31. Drummond M, Weatherly H. Implementing the findings of health technology assessments: If the CAT got out of the bag, can the TAIL wag the dog? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:1-12.
32. Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: Recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:165-171.
33. Ehlers l, Vestergaard M, Kidholm K, et al. Doing mini-health technology assessments in hospitals: A new concept of decision support in health care? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:295-301.
34. Eskola J, Höckerstedt K, Mäkäräinen H, et al. The future of FinOHTA - an external review. FinOHTA Report. Helsinki: Finnish Office of Health Care Technology Assessment; 2004.
35. Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, et al. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:240-245.
36. Farand L, Champagne F. An integrative model of emergency department performance based on social action theory. International Interdisciplinary Conference on Emergencies. Montreal, Canada; 2005.
37. Farmer J, Chesson R. Nice lessons to be learned. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:222-235.
38. 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.
39. Giacomini M, Miller F, Browman G. Confronting the "grey zones" of technology assessment: Evaluating genetic testing services for public insurance coverage in Canada. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:301-316.
40. Guisset A-L, Sicotte C, Leclercq P, et al. W. Définition de la performance hospitalière: une enquête auprès des divers groupes d'intérêts au sein des hôpitaux. Sci Soc Sante. 2002;20:65-104.
41. Haddad S, Roberge D, Pineault R. Comprendre la qualité: en reconnaître la complexité. Ruptures - Revue transdisciplinaire en santé. 1997;4:59-78.
42. Hailey D. Elements of effectiveness for health technology assessment programs. HTA Initiative #9. Edmonton: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research; 2003.
43. Hailey D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment: A checklist for HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:1-7.
44. Hailey D, Juzwishin D. Managing external risks to health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;22:429-435.
45. Hanney SR. The utilization of health research in policy making: Concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst. 2003;1:2-30.
46. Hivon M, Lehoux P, Denis JL, et al. Use of health technology assessment in decision making: Co-responsibility of users and producers? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:268-275.
47. INATHA. Available at: http://www.inatha.org.
48. Institute L.B. Annual Report 2006. In: Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft, editor. Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute - Health Technology Assessment; 2006.
49. Jacob R, McGregor M. Assessing the impact of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:68-80.
50. Jacob R, Battista RN. Assessing technology assessment: Early results of the Quebec experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1993;9:564-572.
51. Kuruvilla S, Mays N, Pleasant A, et al. Describing the impact of health research: A research impact framework. BMC Health Ser Res. 2006;6:134.
52. Landry R, Amara N. The impact of transaction costs on the institutional structuration of collaborative academic research. Res Policy. 1998;27:901-914.
53. Lavis JN, Ross S, McLeod CB. Measuring the impact of health research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8:165-170.
54. Lavis JN. A political perspective on evidence-based decision-making. In: Using knowledge in health care: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2004:70-85.
55. Lehoux P, Battista RN, Granados A, et al. International Master's Program in health technology assessment and management: Assessment of the first edition (2001-2003). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:104-112.
56. Lehoux P, Tailliez S, Denis JL, et al. Redefining health technology assessment in Canada: Diversification of products and contextualization of findings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:325-336.
57. Leys M. Health technology assessment: The contribution of qualitative research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:317-329.
58. Martin DK, Giacomini M, Singer PA. Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers. Health Policy. 2002;61:279-290.
59. Minvielle É, Sicotte C, Champagne F, et al. Hospital performance: Competing or shared values? Health Policy. In press.
60. Maynard A, McDaid D. Evaluating health interventions: Exploiting the potential. Health Policy. 2003;63:215-226.
61. McGregor M, Brophy JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:263-267.
62. McKee M, Figueras J, Lessof S. Research and policy: Living on the interface. Eurohealth. 2006;12:26-29.
63. Mears R, Taylor R, Littlejohns P, et al. A review of international health technology assessments (IHTA). London: National Institute of Clinical Excellence; 2000.
64. Menon D, Marshall D. The internationalization of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12:45-51.
65. Menon D, Fung F, Harstall C, et al. The development of a health technology assessment program: The case of Alberta. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995;11:93-101.
66. Mowatt G, Bower DJ, Brebner JA, et al. When is the 'right' time to initiate an assessment of a health technology? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:372-386.
67. Mowatt G, Grant AM, Bower DJ, et al. Timing of assessment of fast-changing health technologies. In: Stevens A, Abrams K, Brazier J, et al., eds. The advanced handbook of methods in evidenced-based health care. London: Sage Publications; 2001;471-484.
68. Nutley SM, Davies HTO. Developing organizational learning in the NHS. Med J. 2001;35:35-42.
69. Parsons T. The social system. New York: Free Press; 1951.
70. Parsons T. Social systems and the evolution of action theory. New York: Free Press; 1977.
71. Pelz DC. Some expanded perspective on the use of social science in public policy. In: Yiner M, Cutler SJ, eds. Major social issues: A multidisciplinary view. New York: Free Press; 1978:346-357.
72. Price JL. The study of organizational effectiveness. Sociol Q. 1972;13:3-15.
73. Raftery J. NICE: Faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. Br Med J. 2001;323:1300-1303.
74. Ross J. The use of economic evaluation in health care: Australian decision makers" perceptions. Health Policy. 1995;31:103-110.
75. Scott T, Mannion R, Davies HT, Marshall MN. Implementing culture change in health care: Theory and practice. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15:111-118.
76. Scott T, Mannion R, Davies H, Marshall M. The quantitative measurement of organizational culture in health care: A review of the available instruments. Health Serv Res. 2003;38:923-945.
77. Scott T, Mannion R, Marshall M, Davies H. Does organisational culture influence health care performance? A review of the evidence. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003;8:105-117.
78. Sculpher M, Drummond M, Buxton M. The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997;2:26-30.
79. Senge PM. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency, Doubleday; 1994.
80. Sicotte C, Champagne F, Contandriopoulos AP, et al. A conceptual framework for the analysis of health care organizations' performance. Health Serv Manage Res. 1998;11:24-48.
81. Sicotte C, Champagne F, Contandriopoulos AP. La performance organisationnelle des organismes publics de santé. Ruptures - Revue transdisciplinaire en santé. 1999;6:34-46.
82. Smirchich L. Concepts and culture in organizational analysis. Adm Sc Q. 1983;28:328-358.
83. Tsui AS. A multiple-constituency model of effectiveness: An empirical examination at the human resource subunit level. Adm Sc Q. 1988;35:458-483.
84. Vallesco-Garrido M, Busse R. Health technology assessment: An introduction to objectives, role of evidence and structure in Europe. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Policy brief series. Copenhagen; 2005.
85. Wanke MI, Juzwishin D, Thornley R. An exploratory review of evaluations of health technology assessment agencies. Alberta: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research-Health Technology Assessment Unit; 2006.
86. Yuchtman E, Seashore ES. A system resource approach to organization effectiveness. Am Sociol Rev. 1967;32:891-903.
87. Zarcadoolas C, Pleasant A, Greer D. Health literacy: An expanded model. Health Promot Int. 2005;20:195-203.