Health technology assessment: Research trends and future priorities in Europe

Journal of Health Services Research and Policy

Volumn 16, Issue SUPPL. 2, 2011, Pages 6-15

  Palmhøj Nielsen, Camilla ^a   Funch, Tina Maria ^a   Kristensen, Finn Børlum ^b  

^a Sundhedsstyrelsen   (Denmark)

^b EUnetHTA Secretariat   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CONSULTATION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EUROPE; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RESEARCH PRIORITY; SOCIAL ASPECT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EUROPE; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 79960213788     PISSN: 13558196     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/jhsrp.2011.011050     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Palmhøj Nielsen C, Funch TM, Kristensen FB. Health technology assessment. In: HSR-Europe. Health Services Research into European Policy and Practice. Final report of the HSREPP project. Utrecht: NIVEL, 2011. Available at http://www.healthservicesresearch.eu
2. Velasco Garrido M, Kristensen FB, Palmhøj Nielsen C, Busse R. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe: current status, challenges and potential. London: World Health Organization on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2008
3. Kristensen FB, Mäkelä M, Allgurin Neikter S, et al. European network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA: Planning, development, and implementation of a sustainable European network for Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(Suppl 2):107-116
4. Ettelt S, Mays N. Health services research in Europe and its use for informing policy. J Health Services Research & Policy 2011;16(Suppl 2):48-60
5. Schäfer W, Hansen J, Groenewegen PP. Use of information tools for measuring the production of HSR, its use in health care policy and its future priorities. In: HSR-Europe. Health Services Research into European Policy and Practice. Final report of the HSREPP project. Utrecht: NIVEL, 2011. Available at http://www.healthservicesresearch.eu
6. Palmhøj Nielsen C, Funch TM, Kristensen FB. Appendix 3: Overview of included literature in the field of health technology assessment. In: HSR-Europe. Health Services Research into European Policy and Practice. Final report of the HSREPP project. Utrecht: NIVEL, 2011. Available at http://www.healthservicesresearch.eu
7. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D. Time-trends in health technology assessments: an analysis of developments in composition of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:492-8 (Pubitemid 41642842)
8. Fenwick E, Marshall DA, Levy AR, Nichol G. Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation. BMC Health Serv Res 2006;6:52
9. Vallejo-Torres L, Steuten LM, Buxton MJ, et al. Integrating health economics modeling in the product development cycle of medical devices: a Bayesian approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008;24:459-64
10. Griffin S, Bojke L, Main C, Palmer S. Incorporating direct and indirect evidence using Bayesian methods: an applied case study in ovarian cancer. Value Health 2006;9:123-31 (Pubitemid 44044745)
11. O'Brien BJ, Spath M, Blackhouse G, et al. A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the health utilities index. Health Econ 2003;12:975-81 (Pubitemid 37407341)
12. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, et al. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2006;24:355-71
13. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:iii, iv, ix-xi, 1-158
14. Thurston SJ, Craig D, Wilson P, Drummond MF. Increasing decision-makers' access to economic evaluations: alternative methods of communicating the information. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008;24:151-7 (Pubitemid 351519513)
15. Autti-Ramo I, Makela M. Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports: an eclectic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:1-8 (Pubitemid 46648293)
16. Hofmann BM. Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008;24:423-9
17. ten Have H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:71-6
18. Møldrup C. Medical technology assessment of the ethical, social, and legal implications of pharmacogenomics. A research proposal for an Internet citizen jury. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002;18:728-32
19. Fulop N, Allen P, Clarke A, Black N. From health technology assessment to research on the organisation and delivery of health services: addressing the balance. Health Policy 2003;63:155-65 (Pubitemid 36132301)
20. Velasco M, Perleth M, Drummond 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 (Pubitemid 34533752)
21. Hailey D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment: a checklist for HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003;19:1-7 (Pubitemid 36356322)
22. Kristensen FB, Lampe K, Chase DL, et al. Practical tools and methods for health technology assessment in Europe: Structures, methodologies, and tools developed by the European network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA. Int JTechnolAssess Health Care. 2009;25(Suppl 2):1-8
23. Draborg E, Andersen CK. What influences the choice of assessment methods in health technology assessments? Statistical analysis of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006;22:19-25 (Pubitemid 43376235)
24. Perleth M, Luhmann D, Gibis B, Droste S. Rapid assessments - quick evaluation of medical technology. Gesundheitswesen 2001;63(Suppl 1):S79-S84
25. 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 (Pubitemid 44469434)
26. Folkersen J, Pedersen PH. [Attitudes to the use of a decision support method when introducing new medical technology at the University Hospital of Copenhagen.] Ugeskr Laeger 2006;168:2069-74
27. Simpson S, Packer C, Carlsson P, et al. Early identification and assessment of new and emerging health technologies: actions, progress, and the future direction of an international collaboration - EuroScan. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008;24:518-25
28. Wild C, Langer T. Emerging health technologies: informing and supporting health policy early. Health Policy 2008;87:160-71
29. 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;22:177-83
30. Simpson S,Wild C (eds). On the horizon: European newsletter on new and emerging health technologies. EUnetHTA, 2008. Available at http://www.eunethta. net/Public/Communication/Newsletter-WP7-2008 (last accessed 24 March 2011)
31. Wild C, Simpson S, Douw K, et al. Information service on new and emerging health technologies: identification and prioritization processes for a European Union-wide newsletter. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl 2):48-55
32. Lampe K, Mäkelä M (eds). EUnetHTA HTA core model for medical and surgical interventions 1.0R Work Package 4. EUnetHTA, 2008. Available at http://www.eunethta.net/ upload/WP4/Final%20Deliverables/ HTA%20Core%20Model%20for%20Medical%20and%20Surgical%20Inter ventions%201%200r. pdf. (last accessed 24 March 2011)
33. Lampe K, Pasternack I (eds). EUnetHTA HTA core model for diagnostic technologies 1.0R Work Package 4. EUnetHTA, 2008. Available at http://www.eunethta.net/upload/WP4/Final%20Deliverables/HTA%20Core%20 Model%20for%20Diagnostic%20Technologies%201%200r.pdf. (last accessed 24 March 2011)
34. FinOHTA. HTA core model handbook. EUnetHTA, 2008. See: https://fio.stakes.fi/htacore/handbook.html (last accessed 24 March 2011)
35. Lampe K, Makela M, Velasco Garrido M, et al. The HTA core model: a novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl 2):9-20
36. Pasternack I, Anttila H, Makela M, et al. Testing the HTA core model: experiences from two pilot projects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl 2):21-7
37. Chase D, Milne R, Hicks N (eds.). EUnetHTA HTA adaptation toolkitWork Package 5. EUnetHTA, 2008. Available at http://www.eunethta.net/upload/WP5/ EUnetHTA-HTA-Adaptation-Toolkit-October08.pdf (last accessed 24 March 2011)
38. NCCHTA (NIHR Coordinating Centre for HTA). Glossary of HTA adaptation terms. EUnetHTA, 2007. Available at http://www.eunethta.net/upload/WP5/ Glossary%20of%20HTA%20Adaptation%20Terms%20November%202007.pdf (last accessed 24 March 2011)
39. Rosten C, Chase DL, Hicks NJ, Milne R, European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). Enhancing understanding: the development of a glossary of health technology assessment adaptation terms. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl 2):42-7
40. Turner S, Chase DL, Milne R, et al. The health technology assessment adaptation toolkit: description and use. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl 2):37-41
41. Turner S, Chase DL, Milne R, et al. The adaptation of health technology assessment reports: Identification of the need for, and development of, a toolkit to aid the process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl 2):28-36
42. Hutton J, Trueman P, Henshall C. Coverage with evidence development: an examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:425-32 (Pubitemid 47586920)
43. Quentin F, Carbonneil C, Lee-Robin SH (eds). EUnetHTA web-based toolkit to facilitate European collaboration on evidence generation on promising health technologies. EUnetHTA 2008. Available at http://www.eunethta.net/upload/ Work%20Package%207/WP7A%20Deliverable%20Dec%202008%20 (adjusted).pdf (last accessed 24 March 2011)
44. Battista RN. Expanding the scientific basis of health technology assessment: a research agenda for the next decade. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006;22:275-82
45. Holland WW. Health technology assessment and public health: a commentary. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:77-80 (Pubitemid 38656965)
46. May C, Mort M, Williams T, et al. Health technology assessment in its local contexts: studies of telehealthcare. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:697-710 (Pubitemid 36765365)
47. Gibis B, Artiles J, Corabian P, et al. Application of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis in the development of a health technology assessment program. Health Policy 2001;58:27-35 (Pubitemid 32757266)
48. Moharra M (ed). EUnetHTA work package 8. EUnetHTA handbook on health technology assessment capacity building. EUnetHTA, 2008. Available at http://www.gencat.cat/salut/depsan/units/aatrm/pdf/eunethta-wp8-hb-hta-capacity- building.pdf (last accessed 24 March 2011)
49. Moharra M, Espallargues M, Kubesch N, et al. Systems to support health technology assessment (HTA) in Member States of the European Union with limited institutionalization of HTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl 2):75-83
50. Martelli F, La Torre G, Di Ghionno E, et al. Health technology assessment agencies: an international overview of organizational aspects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007;23:414-24 (Pubitemid 47586919)
51. Moharra M, Kubesch N, Estrada MD, et al. EUnetHTA survey report on HTA organisations. Copenhagen: EUnetHTA, 2008
52. 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;16:743-50
53. Hanney S, Buxton M, Green C, et al. An assessment of the impact of the NHS health technology assessment programme. Health Technol Assess 2007;11:iii, iv, ix-xi, 1-180
54. 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 (Pubitemid 36083147)
55. Oliver A, Mossialos E, Robinson R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:1-10 (Pubitemid 38656956)
56. Hailey D, Nordwall M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006;22:497-9 (Pubitemid 44622970)
57. Culyer AJ. Involving stakeholders in healthcare decisions - the experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales. Healthcare Q 2005;8:56-60
58. Palmhøj Nielsen C, Lauritsen SW, Kristensen FB, et al. Involving stakeholders and developing a policy for stakeholder involvement in the European Network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl 2):84-91
59. Brazier J. Valuing health states for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2008;26:769-79
60. Ratcliffe J, Longworth L. Investigating the structural reliability of a discrete choice experiment within health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002;18:139-44 (Pubitemid 34408536)
61. Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Paisley S, Jones DR, Working Group on the Use of Evidence in Economic Decision Models. Use of evidence in economic decision models: practical issues and methodological challenges. Health Econ 2007;16:1277-86
62. Jönsson B. IQWiG: an opportunity lost? Eur J Health Econ 2008;9:205-7
63. von der Schulenburg J, Vauth C, Mittendorf T, Greiner W. Methods for determining cost-benefit ratios for pharmaceuticals in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 2007;8(Suppl 1):S5-S31 (Pubitemid 47283055)
64. Jonsson B. Time for a common standard for cost-effectiveness in Europe? Eur J Health Econ 2006;7:223-4
65. Leys M. Health technology assessment: the contribution of qualitative research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:317-29 (Pubitemid 36818675)
66. 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;24:511-7
67. Perleth M, Jakubowski E, Busse R. What is "best practice" in health care? State of the art and perspectives in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the European health care systems. Health Policy 2001;56:235-50 (Pubitemid 32499231)
68. Chalkidou K, Hoy A, Littlejohns P. Making a decision to wait for more evidence: when the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends a technology only in the context of research. J R Soc Med 2007;100:45-60
69. Pearson S, Littlejohns P. Reallocating resources: how should the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guide disinvestment efforts in the National Health Service? J Health Serv Res Policy 2007;12:160-5 (Pubitemid 47122231)
70. Gulacsi L, Boncz I, Drummond M. Issues for countries considering introducing the "fourth hurdle": the case of Hungary. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:337-41 (Pubitemid 39079569)