Development of a toolkit and glossary to aid in the adaptation of health technology assessment (HTA) reports for use in different contexts

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 13, Issue 59, 2009, Pages 1-118

  Chase, Debbie ^a   Rosten, Claire ^a   Turner, Sheila ^a   Hicks, Nick ^a   Milne, Ruairidh ^a  

^a Health Technology Assessment   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CHECKLIST; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; DELPHI STUDY; FACTUAL DATABASE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW;

DOCUMENTATION; EUROPE; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 74849125399     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta13590     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. 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 2008;54:169-85.
2. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). 2008. URL: www.inahta.org/. Cited 30 April 2008.
3. Asua BJ. [The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) or the need for collaboration in evaluating health technologies] [Spanish]. Med Clin 1999;112(Suppl. 9).
4. Stevens A, Milne R, Burls A. Health technology assessment: history and demand. J Public Health Med 2003;25:98-101.
5. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003;63:121-32.
6. Armstrong R, Waters E, Roberts H, Oliver S, Popay J. The role and theoretical evolution of knowledge translation and exchange in public health. J Public Health 2008;28:384-9.
7. Eisenberg JM. Globalize the evidence, localize the decision: evidence-based medicine and international diversity. Health Aff 2007;21:166-8.
8. Draborg E. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:89-95.
9. Ehlers L, Vestergaard M, Kidholm K, Bonnevie B, Pedersen PH, Jørgensen T, 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.
10. 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;76:334-45.
11. Ellis P. Globalization of healthcare: a UK perspective. Healthc Pap 2003;4:45-9.
12. Stevens A, Milne R. Health technology assessment in England and Wales. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:11-24.
13. Milne R, Clegg A, Stevens A. HTA responses and the classic HTA report. J Public Health Med 2003;25:102-6.
14. Kristensen FB, Chamova J, Hansen NW. Toward a sustainable European Network for Health Technology Assessment. The EUnetHTA project. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2006;49:283-5.
15. Liberati A, Sheldon TA, Banta HD. EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup Report on Methodology. Methodological guidance for the conduct of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1997;13:186-219.
16. EUnetHTA - European Network for Health Technology Assessment. URL: www.eunethta.net. Accessed April 2008.
17. Battista RN. Expanding the scientific basis of health technology assessment: a research agenda for the next decade. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006;22:275-80.
18. Hailey D. Health technology assessment. Singapore Med J 2006;47:187-92.
19. Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, Drummond MF, Golder S, Urdahl H, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(49).
20. 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;21:165-71.
21. Wang S, Moss JR, Hiller JE. Applicability and transferability of interventions in evidence-based public health. Health Promot Int 2005;21:76-83.
22. Tawfik-Shukor AR, Klazinga NS, Arah OA. Comparing health system performance assessment and management approaches in the Netherlands and Ontario, Canada. BMC Health Serv Res 2007;7.
23. Welte R, Feenstra T, Jager H, Leidl R. A decision chart for assessing and improving the transferability of economic evaluation results between countries. Pharmacoeconomics 2004;22:857-76.
24. Boulenger S, Nixon J, Drummond M, Ulmann P, Rice S, de Pouvourville G. Can economic evaluations be made more transferable? Eur J Health Econ 2005;6:334-46.
25. Hailey D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment: a checklist for HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003;19:1-7.
26. Equity-Oriented Toolkit for Health Technology. From WHO Collaborating Center for Knowledge Translation and Health Technology Assessment in Health Equity. 2007. URL: www.intermed.med.uottawa.ca/research/globalhealth/whocc/ projects/eo-toolkit/authors.htm.
27. Kleijnen J, Riemsma RP. A comparison and discussion of the methods, findings, adaptability and decisions resulting from two reviews of vision screening in children undertaken in the UK and Germany. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews, York, 2008. URL: www.hta.ac.uk/sundry/05-52-02-Comparison-of-two- vision-screening-assessments-KSRLtd.pdf. Accessed 28 Aug 2009.