FROM TALK to ACTION: POLICY STAKEHOLDERS, APPROPRIATENESS, and SELECTIVE DISINVESTMENT

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 236-240

  Paprica, P Alison ^d   Culyer, Anthony J ^a   Elshaug, Adam G ^b   Peffer, Justin ^c   Sandoval, Guillermo A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c ONTARIO MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND LONG TERM CARE   (Canada)

^d NONE

Author keywords

Appropriateness; De implementation; Disinvestment; Evidence based health care; Health economics; Health policy

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE;

APPROPRIATENESS; DE-IMPLEMENTATION; DISINVESTMENT; EVIDENCE-BASED; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH POLICY;

INVESTMENTS;

APPROPRIATE CARE; ARTICLE; CANADA; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DISINVESTMENT; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; MANAGEMENT; ONTARIO; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURE; UTILIZATION;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; ONTARIO; POLICY MAKING; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES;

EID: 84949537772     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462315000392     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. ABIM Foundation. Choosing wisely lists. Philadelphia, PA: ABIM Foundation. http://www. choosingwisely. org/doctor-patient-lists/ (accessed April 10, 2015).
2. U. S. Preventative Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. Rockville, MD: U. S. Preventative Services Task Force. http://www. uspreventiveservicestaskforce. org (accessed April 10, 2015).
3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE do not do recommendations. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. http://www. nice. org. uk/savingsAndProductivity/ collection?page=1&pageSize=10&type=Do+not+do&published= &impact=&filter=(accessed May 2, 2015).
4. Medical Benefits Reviews Task Group. Development of a quality framework for the medicare benefits schedule discussion paper. Perth, WA: Department of Health and Ageing; 2010.
5. Health Quality Ontario. Appropriateness initiative. Toronto, Ontario: Health Quality Ontario http://www. hqontario. ca/evidence/evidenceprocess/ appropriateness-initiative (accessed May 2, 2015).
6. Choosing Wisely Canada. About us. Toronto, Canada: Choosing Wisely Canada. http://www. choosingwiselycanada. org/about/what-is-cwc/ (accessed May 2, 2015).
7. Council of the Federation. Canada's provinces and territories realize real savings in healthcare through collaboration. Niagara-on-the-Lake, Canada: Council of the Federation; 2013.
8. Elshaug AG, Hiller JE, Tunis SR, Moss JR. Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust N Z J Health Policy. 2007;4:23.
9. Elshaug AG, McWilliams JM, Landon BE. The value of low-value lists. JAMA. 2013;309:775-776.
10. Elshaug AG, Watt AM, Moss JR, Hiller J. Policy perspectives on the obsolescence of health technologies in Canada. Ottawa, Canada: CADTH; 2009.
11. Ibargoyen-Roteta N, Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea I, Asua J. Guiding the process of health technology disinvestment. Health Policy. 2010;98:218-226.
12. Polisena J, Clifford T, Elshaug AG, et al. Case Studies that illustrate disinvestment and resource allocation decision-making processes in health care: A systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:174-184.
13. Watt AM, Hiller JE, Braunack-Mayer AJ, et al. The ASTUTE Health study protocol: Deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment. Implement Sci. 2012;7:101.
14. Garrido VM, Gerhardusb A, Røttingenc JA, Busseaet R. Developing Health Technology Assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy. 2010;94:196-202.
15. Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S. Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2005.
16. 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.
17. Lavis JN, Permanand G, Oxman AD, Lewen S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7(Suppl 1):S13.
18. Merino GA, Lema LV. Needs and demands of policy-makers. In: Velasco Garrido M, Kristensen FB, Nielsen CP, Busse R, eds. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe: Current status, challenges and potential. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization; 2008:137-159.
19. World Health Organization. Appropriateness in health care services-Report on a World Health Organization workshop. Koblenz, Germany: World Health Organization; 2000.
20. ElshaugAG, Moss JR, Littlejohns P, et al. Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Med J Aust. 2009;190:269-273.
21. Elshaug AG, Watt AM, Mundy L, Willis C. Over 150 potentially low-value health care practices: An Australian study. Med J Aust. 2012;197:556-560.
22. Levin L, Goeree R, Sikich N, et al. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: The Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:299-309.
23. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ. 2004;329:224-227.
24. Ontario HealthTechnologyAdvisory Committee. Appropriateness Phase 1 OHTAC Recommendations. Toronto, Canada: Health Quality Ontario; 2013.
25. Lavis JN, Lomas J, Hamid M, Sewankambo NK. Assessing country-level efforts to link research to action. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84: 620-628.