Requirements for and expectations of health technology assessment in Galicia (Spain). A qualitative study from the perspective of decision-makers and clinicians;Demandas y expectativas de la evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias en Galicia. Análisis cualitativo desde la perspectiva de decisores y clínicos

Gaceta Sanitaria

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 454-460

  Varela Lema, Leonor ^a   Merino, Gerardo Atienza ^a   García, Marisa López ^a   Martínez, María Vidal ^a   Triana, Elena Gervas ^a   Mota, Teresa Cerdá ^b  

^a Santiago de Compostela ^*  (Spain)

^b Servicio de Medicina Preventiva   (Spain)

Author keywords

Attitudes of health personnel; Health technology assessment utilization; Qualitative research; Telephone interviews

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PHYSICIAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SPAIN; STANDARD; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATORS; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIANS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SPAIN; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 81255127531     PISSN: 02139111     EISSN: 15781283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2011.05.014     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Goodman C.S. Introduction to health technology assessment 2004, National Institute of Health, Health & Human Services, U.S. National Library of Medicine.
2. Banta D. What is technology assessment?. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care 2009, 25:7-9.
3. Sampietro-Colom L., Asua J., Briones E., et al. AuNETS group, History of health technology assessment: Spain. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care 2009, 25:163-173.
4. Real Decreto 207/2010, de 26 de febrero, por el que se establecen las condiciones de uso tutelado de técnicas, tecnologías y procedimientos sanitarios y se modifica el Real Decreto 1207/2006, de 20 de octubre, por el que se regula la gestión del Fondo de Cohesión sanitaria. R.D. N° 207/2010 (16 marzo 2010).
5. Benguria Arrate G, Gutiérrez Ibarluzea I, Llanos Méndez A, et al. Red estatal de identificación, priorización y evaluación temprana de tecnologías sanitarias nuevas y emergentes. Madrid: Plan Nacional para el SNS del Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo; 2006. OSTEBA N 2006/01.
6. Varela Lema L, Ruano Raviña A, Cerdá Mota T, et al. Observación post-introducción de tecnologías sanitarias. Guía metodológica. avalia-t N° 2007/02. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Política Social; 2007.
7. Ruano Raviña A, Velasco González M, Varela Lema L, et al. Identificación, priorización y evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias obsoletas. Guía metodológica. avalia-t N° 2007/01. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Política Social; 2007.
8. Lavis J.N., Davies H., Oxman A., et al. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Res & Policy 2005, 10:35-48.
9. Innvaer S., Vist G., Trommald M., et al. Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Res & Policy 2002, 7:239-244.
10. Atienza Merino G., Varela Lema L. Needs and demands of policy-makers. En: Word Health Organization, editor. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe. Current status. challenges and potential 2008, Word Health Organization, Geneva.
11. Andradas E., Blasco J.A., Valentín B., et al. Defining products for a new health technology assessment agency in Madrid. Spain: a survey of decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008, 24:60-69.
12. Gagnon M.P., Sánchez E., Pons J.M. Integration of health technology assessment recommendations into organizational and clinical practice: a case study in Catalonia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006, 22:169-176.
13. Lavis J.N., Robertson D., Woodside J.M., et al. How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers?. Milbank Q 2003, 81:221-248.
14. Cheater F., Baker R., Gillies C. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005, 3.
15. Cabrero García J., Richart Martínez M. El debate investigación cualitativa frente a investigación cuantitativa. Revista de Enfermería Clínica 1996, 6.
16. Callejo Gallego J. Observación, entrevista y grupo de discusión: el silencio de las tres prácticas de investigación. Rev Esp Salud Pública 2002, 76:409-422.
17. Vázquez Navarrete M.L. Técnicas cualitativas en promoción y educación para la salud. Fundamentos teóricos. La observación participante. la entrevista abierta y el grupo de discusión 2000, Consultoría y Gestión, Barcelona.
18. Chugani V.M., Martín Fernández R.L., Soto Pedre E., et al. Implantación de programas de telemedicina en la sanidad pública de España: experiencia desde la perspectiva de clínicos y decisores. Gac Sanit 2009, 23:223-229.
19. Hivon M., Lehoux P., Denis J.J., et al. Use of health technology assessment in decision making: coresponsibility of users and producers?. Int J Health Assess Health Care 2005, 21:268-275.
20. Mitton C, Adair CE, McKenzie E, et al. Knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE). A systematic review, key informant interviews and design of a KTE Strategy. En: Institute of Health Economics, editor. Effective dissemination of findings from research. Alberta: IHE; 2008.
21. Trueman P., Grainger D.L., Downs K.E. Coverage with evidence development: applications and issues. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 2010, 26:79-85.
22. Fronsdal K.B., Facey K., Klemp M., et al. Health technology assessment to optimize health technology utilization: using implementation initiatives and monitoring processes. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 2010, 26:309-316.
23. Goozner M. FDA increases focus on postmarketing studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010, 102.
24. Norris S, Atkins D, Bruening W, et al. Selecting observational studies for comparing individual interventions. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness review. Rockville (MD): Agency for HealthCare Research and Quality; 2010.
25. Elshaug A.G., Hiller J.E., Moss J.R. Exploring policy-maker' perspectives on disinvestment from ineffective healthcare practices. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 2008, 24:1-9.
26. Rottingen J.-A., Gerhardus A. Velasco Garrido M. Future challenges for HTA. Europe. En: Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe. Current status, challenges and potential 2008, Word Health Organization, Geneva. WHOrganization (Ed.).
27. Sobrido Prieto M, González Guitián C, Cerdá Mota T, et al. Estrategias para la difusión y difusión de los productos de evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias (ETS). Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Política Social. Informe avalia-t N.° 2007/01.
28. OECD Health Project. Decision making and implementation: an analysis of servey results. En: OECD, editor. Health technologies and decision making. Paris: OECD; 2005.