European network for health technology assessment joint action (EUnetHTA JA): A process evaluation performed by questionnaires and documentary analysis

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 18, Issue 37, 2014, Pages 1-295

  Woodford Guegan, Eleanor ^a   Cook, Andrew ^a  

^a National Institute for Health Research ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COOPERATION; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DELPHI STUDY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH SURVEY; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT JOINT ACTION PROJECT; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; UNITED KINGDOM; VALIDATION PROCESS; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; EUROPEAN UNION; FACTUAL DATABASE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MALE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROGRAM EVALUATION;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; DELPHI TECHNIQUE; EUROPEAN UNION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; MALE; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84902264506     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: 20464924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta18370     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Stevens A, Milne R, Burls A. Health technology assessment: history and demand. J Public Health Med 2003;25:98-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdg022
2. Drummond M, Banta D. Health technology assessment in the United Kingdom. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl. 1):178-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309090618
3. Cochrane A. Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services. Leeds: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1972.
4. Banta D, Borlum Kristensen F. A history of health technology assessment at the European level. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl.):68-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0266462309090448
5. Banta D. Introduction to the EUR-ASSESS Report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1997;13:133-43.
6. Banta D, Oortwijn W. Health technology assessment and health care in the European Union. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:626-35.
7. Jonsson E, Banta D. Executive Summary of the ECHTA/ECAHI project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002;18:213-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462302000235
8. Borlum Kristensen F, Makela M, Allgurin Neikter S, Rehnqvist N, Lund Haheim L, Morland B, et al. Planning, development and implementation of a sustainable European network for Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl. 2):107-16.
9. Lampe K, Makela M, Velasco Garrido M, Antila H, Autti-Ramo I. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309990638
10. Turner S, Chase DL, Milne R, Cook A, Hicks NJ, Rosten C, 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309990651
11. Turner S, Chase DL, Milne R, Cook A, Hicks NJ, Rosten C, et al. The health technology assessment adaptation toolkit: Description and use. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl. 2):37-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309990663
12. Haheim LL, Imaz I, Loud ML, Gasparetto T, Gonzalez-Enriquez J, Dahlgren H, et al. Internal evaluation of the European network for Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009;25(Suppl. 2):99-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309990742
13. European Commission. EUnetHTA Joint Action. 2009 23 02 Description of the action URL: www. eunethta.eu/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/EUnetHTA%20JA1%20Technical%20Annex.pdf (accessed 20 October 2013).
14. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, et al. A pragmaticexplanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;59:1125-6.
15. Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD. Pragmatic Trials in Health Care Systems (PRACTIHC). Why are so few randomized trials useful, and what can we do about it? J Clin Epidemiol 2006;87:351-5.
16. Brass EP. The gap between clinical trials and clinical practice: the use of pragmatic clinical trials to inform regulatory decision making. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010;87:351-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2009.218
17. Maclure M. Explaining pragmatic trials to pragmatic policymakers. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;59:1125-6.
18. McMahon AD. Study control, violators, inclusion criteria and defining explanatory and pragmatic trials. Stat Med 2002;21:1365-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.1120
19. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Kotzin S, et al. Clinical Trial Registration: A Statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1250-1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe048225
20. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Is this clinical trial fully registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 2005;365:1827-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66588-9
21. Trastuzumab for 6 Months or 1 Year in Treating Women With Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer That Can Be Removed By Surgery. URL: http://clinicaltrialsgov/show/NCT00381901 (accessed 20 October 2013).
22. NIHR HTA programme. Details of HTA Project in Progress: PERSEPHONE-Duration of Trastuzumab Study with Chemotherapy in Early Breast Cancer: Six versus Twelve Months. URL: www.hta.ac.uk/1607 (accessed 20 October 2013).
23. CATT Research Group, Martin DF, Maguire MG, Ying GS, Grunwald JE, Fine SL, et al. Ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1897-908.
24. CATT Research Group, Martin DF, Maguire MG, Fine SL, Ying GS, Jaffe GJ, et al. Ranibizumab and Bevacizumab for Treatment of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration: Two-Year Results. Ophthalmology 2012;119:1388-98.
25. The IVAN study investigators, Chakravarthy U, Harding SP, Rogers CA, Downes SM, Lotery AJ, et al. Ranibizumab versus Bevacizumab to Treat Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration: One-Year Findings from the IVAN Randomized Trial. Ophthalmology 2012;119:1399-411.
26. Desbiens NA. Let medicine lead the way beyond the registration of clinical trials: Registering hypotheses. Am J Med Sci 2008;335:137-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MAJ.0b013e3181572096
27. Hughes J, Nieuwenhuis L, editors. A Project Manager's Guide to Evaluation. Evaluate Europe Handbook Series. Bremen: ITB Institute Technology and Education; 2005.
28. Weiss CH. Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies. 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1998.
29. Zarinpoush F. Project Evaluation Guide for Nonprofit Organizations: Fundamental Methods and Steps for Conducting Project Evaluation. Toronto, ON: Imagine Canada; 2006.
30. Britten N. Qualitative Research: Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ 1995;311:251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.6999.251
31. Kitzinger J. Qualitative Research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ 1995;311:299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299
32. Maysa N, C. P. Qualitative Research: Observational methods in health care settings. BMJ 1995;311:182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.6998.182
33. Keen J, Packwooda T. Qualitative Research: Case study evaluation. BMJ 1995;311:144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7002.444
34. Gillham B. Developing a Questionnaire. London: Continuum International Publishing Group; 2000.
35. Edwards P. Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ 2002;324:1183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1183
36. Oppenheim AN. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. 2nd edn. London: Continuum; 2000.
37. O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ. 'Any other comments?' Open questions on questionnaires-a bane or a bonus to research? BMC Med Res Methodol 2004;4.
38. Boynton PM, Greenhalgh T. Selecting, designing and developing your questionnaire. BMJ 2004;328:1312-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7451.1312
39. Boynton PM. Administering, analysing, and reporting your questionnaire. BMJ 2004;328:1372-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7452.1372
40. Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, DiGuiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, et al. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; Issue 3. Art. No.: MR000008. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4
41. McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Bamford C, Stten N, et al. Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health survey staff and patients. Health Technol Assess 2001;5(31).
42. Fowler FJ. Survey Research Methods. Sage Publications; 2002.
43. de Leeuw E, Callegaro M, Hox J, Korendijk E, Lensvelt-Mulders G. The influence of advance letters on response in telephone surveys: a meta-analysis. Public Opin Q 2007;71:413-43.
44. Parsons C. Web-Based Surveys: Best Practices Based on the Research Literature. Visitor Stud 2007;10:13-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10645570701263404
45. SurveyMonkey. com URL: www.surveymonkey.com (accessed 20 October 2013).
46. Coons SJ. Responses to Survey Research: Transparency and Representativeness Are Key. Clin Ther 2007;29:466-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2918(07)80084-1
47. National Center for Education Statistics. Statistical Standards. URL: http://nces.ed.gov/statprog/ standards.asp (accessed 25 August 2013).
48. Thorne S. Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence Based Nurs 2000;3:68-70. http://dx.doi. org/10.1136/ebn.3.3.68
49. Chase D, Rosten C, Turner S, Hicks N, Milne RHt. Development of a toolkit and glossary to aid in the adaptation of health technology assessment (HTA) reports for use in different contexts. Health Technol Assess 2009;13(59).
50. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 2000;32:1008-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01567.x
51. Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. 2002. URL: http://is.nijt.edu/pubs/delphibook (accessed 20 October 2013).
52. Steurer J. The Delphi method: an efficient procedure to generate knowledge. Skeletal Radiol 2011;40:959-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00256-011-1145-z
53. INAHTA. INAHTA. Global Networking For Effective Healthcare. URL: www.inahta.net (accessed 20 October 2013)
54. EUnetHTA. EUnetHTA URL: www.eunethta.eu/ (accessed 25 August 2013).
55. Lientz BP, Rea KP. International Project Management. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science; 2003.
56. Turner R, Zolin R. Forecasting Success on Large Projects: Developing Reliable Scales to Predict Multiple Perspectives by Multiple Stakeholders Over Multiple Time Frames. Project Manag J 2012;43:87-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21289
57. Cooke-Davies T. The 'real' success factors on projects. Int J Project Manag 2002;20:185-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00067-9
58. Koster K. International Project Management. London: Sage Publications Ltd.; 2010.
59. Baskerville R, Nanhakumar J. Activating and Perpetuating Virtual Teams: Now That We're Mobile, Where Do We Go? IEE Transact Prof Commun 2007;50:17-34.
60. O'Dea NA, de Chazal P, Saltman DC, Kidd MR. Running effective meetings: a primer for doctors. Postgrad Med J 2006;82:454-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.2005.042424
61. Cohen MA, Allen JA, Rogelberg SG, Luong A. Meeting Design Characteristics and Attendee Perceptions of Staff/Team Meeting Quality. Group Dynamics 2011;15:90-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021549
62. Harolds JA. Planning and conducting meetings effectively, part II: Some component aspects of a meeting. Clin Nucl Med 2012;37:71-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0b013e318238c24b
63. Aubry M, Hobbs B. A fresh look at the contribution of project management to organizational performance. Project Manag J 2011;42:3-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20213
64. Varvasovszky Z, Brugha R. How to do (or not to do)... a stakeholder analysis. Health Policy Plan 2000;15:338-45.
65. Binder J. Global Project Management: Communication, Collaboration and Management Across Borders. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Ltd; 2007.
66. European Commission. EUnetHTA JA2. 2011. Description of the Action URL: www.eunethta.eu/ sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/Technical%20Annex1b%20of%20the%20EUnetHTA%20JA %202%20Grant%20Agreement.pdf (accessed 20 October 2013).
67. Haheim LL, Iglesia II, Laubli M, Gasparetto T, Gonzalez-Enriquez J, Trofimovs I, et al. EUnetHTA Internal Evaluation Report (2006-2008). 2008. URL: www.eunethta.eu/outputs/eunethta-internalevaluation-report-2006-2008 (accessed March 2014).
68. Trastuzumab in Treating Women With HER2-Positive Early Breast Cancer. URL: www.clinicaltrials. gov/ct2/show/NCT00712140?term=Persephone&rank=1 (accessed 20 October 2013)
69. Pivot X, Romieu G, Debled M, Pierga JY, Kerbrat P, Bachelot T et al. 6 months versus 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PHARE): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:741-8 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045 (13)70225-0
70. The Synergism Or Long Duration (SOLD) Study. URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ NCT00593697?term=SOLD&rank=1 (accessed 20 October 2013).
71. Comparison of Intra-operative Radiotherapy With Post-operative Radiotherapy for Women With Early Breast Cancer (TARGIT). URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00983684? term=TARGIT&rank=1 (accessed 20 October 2013).
72. The Effectiveness of Community vs. Hospital Eye Service follow-up for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration with controlled disease. URL: www.controlled-trials.com/ ISRCTN07479761 (accessed 20 October 2013)
73. van der Reis MI, La Heij EC, De Jong-Hesse Y, Ringens PJ, Hendrikse F, Schouten JS. A systematic review of the adverse events of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections. Retina 2011;38:1449-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e3182278ab4
74. Reeves BC, Harding SP, Langham J, Grieve R, Tomlin K, Walker J, et al. Verteporfin photodynamic therapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration: cohort study for the UK. Health Technol Assess 2012;16(6).
75. Macular EpiRetinal Brachytherapy Versus Lucentis® Only Treatment (MERLOT). URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01006538 (accessed 20 October 2013).
76. Abrams K, Altman D, Conroy S, Daniel T, Fancourt G, Gray A, et al. The United Kingdom Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (UK TAVI) Trial URL: www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/095563 (acessed 20 October 2013).
77. Gilard M, Eltchaninoff H, Iung B, Donzeau-Gouge P, Chevreul K, Fajadet J et al. Registry of transcatheter aortic-valve implantation in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1705-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1114705
78. THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial. URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ ct2/show/NCT00530894?term=The+PARTNER+trial&rank=1 (accessed 20 October 2013).
79. Klazen CAH, Verhaar HJJ, Lampmann LEH, Juttmann JR, Blonk MC, Jansen FH. VERTOS II: Percutaneous vertebroplasty versus conservative therapy in patients with painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures; rationale, objectives and design of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Trials 2007;8:33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-33
80. Brinjikji W, Cornstock BA, Gray L, Kallmes DF. Local Anesthesia with Bupivacaine and Lidocaine for Vertebral Fracture Trial (LABEL): A Report of Outcomes and Comparison with the Investigational Vertebroplasty Efficacy and Safety Trial (INVEST). Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:1631-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2145
81. Shepstone L, Fordham R, Lenaghan E, Harvey I, Cooper C, Gittoes N, et al. A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening older women for the prevention of fractures: rationale, design and methods for the SCOOP study. Osteoporos Int 2012;23:2507-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00198-011-1876-7
82. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2013. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: www.R-project.org (accessed 25 August 2013).