Health technology assessment to optimize health technology utilization: Using implementation initiatives and monitoring processes

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 309-316

  Frønsdal, Katrine B ^a   Facey, Karen ^b   Klemp, Marianne ^b   Norderhaug, Inger Natvig ^b   Mørland, Berit ^b   Røttingen, John Arne ^b  

^a NORWEGIAN KNOWLEDGE CENTRE FOR THE HEALTH SERVICES   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Implementation; Monitoring; Optimization; Technology assessment; Utilization

Indexed keywords

COMPLEX SYSTEMS; DECISION MAKERS; HEALTH SYSTEMS; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; IMPLEMENTATION; MONITORING ACTIVITIES; MONITORING PROCESS; SCOPING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; UTILIZATION;

DECISION MAKING; HEALTH; INVESTMENTS; MONITORING; OPTIMIZATION; RATING;

TECHNOLOGY;

DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; REVIEW; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CONSENSUS; EDUCATION; MASS COMMUNICATION;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; CONSENSUS; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; EDUCATION; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 78049448622     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462310000309     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Borowski HZ, Brehaut J, Hailey D. Linking evidence from health technology assessments to policy and decision making: The Alberta model. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:155-161.
2. CADTH COMPUS Program. http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/ en/compus (accessed December 2008).
3. Cheater F, Baker R, Gillies C, et al. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;3:CD005470.
4. Doran T, Fullwood C, Gravelle H, et al. Pay-for-performance programs in family practices in the United Kingdom. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:375-384.
5. 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.
6. Gerhardus A, Dorendorf E, Røttingen JA, Santamera AS. What are the effects of HTA reports on the health system? Evidence from the research literature. In: Garrido MV, Kristensen FB, Nielsen CP, Busse R, eds. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe. Current status, challenges and potential. EUnetHTA, European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2008; Observatory Studies Series No. 14:109-125.
7. Granados A, Jonsson E, Banta HD, et al. EUR-ASSESS project subgroup report on dissemination and impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:220-286.
8. Haro J, Salvador-Carulla L. The SOHO (Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcome) study: Implications for the treatment of schizophrenia. CNS Drugs. 2006;20:293-302.
9. Hutton J, Trueman P, Facey K. Harmonization of evidence requirements for health technology assessment in reimbursement decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:511-517.
10. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O'Brien MA, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2:CD000259.
11. Kristensen FB, Sigmund H. DACEHTA health technology assessment handbook: The organisation, chapt. 8. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment, National Board of Health; 2007:116-139.
12. Leavitt HJ. Applied organizational change in industry: Structural, technological and humanistic approaches. In: March JG, ed. Handbook of organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1965.
13. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Implementation tools. http://www.nice.org.uk/usingguidance/implementationtools/implementation- tools.jsp (accessed March 2009).
14. Nicholson S, Pauly MV,WuAY, et al. Getting real performance out of pay-for-performance. Milbank Q. 2008;86:435-457.
15. OECD Health Project. Decision making and implementation: An analysis of survey results. In: Health technologies and decision making. Paris: OECD; 2005.
16. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Medical Advisory Secretariat Field Evaluations. http://www.health. gov.on.ca/english/providers/ program/mas/field/field-eval.html (accessed April 2009).
17. Oxman AD, Bjørndal A, Flottorp SA, Lewin S, Lindahl AK. Implementing change. In: Integrated health care for people with chronic conditions. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2008:1-108. http://www.kunnskapssenteret.no/Publikasjoner/5114.cms (accessed December 2008).
18. Paxton EW, Inacio M, Slipchenko T, Fithian DC. The Kaiser Permanente national total joint replacement registry. Perm J. 2007;12:12-16.
19. Perlin JB,Kolodner RM, Roswell RH. TheVeterans Health Administration: Quality, value, accountability, and information as transforming strategies for patient-centered care. Am J Manag Care. 2004;10:828-836.
20. Slutsky J, Atkins D, Chang S. Comparing medical interventions. In: Agency for healthcare research and quality. Methods guide for comparative effectiveness reviews. Rockville MD: AHRQ; 2008. http://effectivehealthcare. ahrq.gov/healthInfo. cfm?infotype=rr&ProcessID=60 (accessed December 2008).
21. Tappenden P, Chilcott JB, Eggington S, Oakley J, McCabe C. Methods for expected value of information analysis in complex health economic models: Developments on the health economics of interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate for multiple sclerosis. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1-78.