GUIDING PRINCIPLES for GOOD PRACTICES in HOSPITAL-BASED HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT UNITS

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 457-465

  Sampietro Colom, Laura ^a   Lach, Krzysztof ^a   Pasternack, Iris ^b   Wasserfallen, Jean Blaise ^c   Cicchetti, Americo ^d   Marchetti, Marco ^e   Kidholm, Kristian ^f   Arentz Hansen, Helene ^g   Rosenmöller, Magdalene ^h   Wild, Claudia ⁱ   Kahveci, Rabia ^j   Ulst, Margus ^k  

^a HOSPITAL CLÍNIC   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^c LAUSANNE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

^d UNIVERSITÀ CATTOLICA DEL SACRO CUORE   (Italy)

^e FONDAZIONE POLICLINICO UNIVERSITARIO A GEMELLI IRCCS   (Italy)

^f ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

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

^h IESE BUSINESS SCHOOL   (Spain)

ⁱ LUDWIG BOLTZMANN INSTITUTE FOR LUNG VASCULAR RESEARCH   (Austria)

^j ANKARA TRAINING AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL   (Turkey)

^k TARTU UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Estonia)

more..

Author keywords

Best practices; Guidelines; Hospitals; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BENCHMARKING; DECISION MAKING; SURVEYS;

ASSESSMENT PROCESS; BEST PRACTICES; FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEW; GUIDELINES; GUIDING PRINCIPLES; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS; LARGE SCALE SURVEYS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS;

HOSPITALS;

DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERVIEW; LEADERSHIP; MODEL; VALIDATION PROCESS; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; MANAGEMENT; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HOSPITALS; HUMANS; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; POLICY MAKING; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84960799581     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462315000732     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. McGregor M. What decision-makers want and what they have been getting. Value Health. 2006;9:181-185.
2. Cicchetti A, Marchetti M, Bidino R, Corio M. Hospital based health technology assessment world-wide survey. Hospital based health technology assessment Sub-Interest Group; http://www. htai. org/ fileadmin/HTAi-Files/ISG/HospitalBasedHTA/2008Files/ HospitalBasedHTAISGSurveyReport. pdf 2008;41 (accessed January 18, 2016).
3. Sampietro-Colom L, Morilla-Bachs I, Gutierrez-Moreno S, Gallo P. Development and test of a decision support tool for hospital health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:460-465.
4. Kidholm K, Ølholm A, Birk-Olsen M, et al. An interview study in nine European countries. Health Policy (NewYork) [Internet]. Elsevier Ireland Ltd; 2015; http://dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. healthpol. 2015. 08. 011 (accessed January 18, 2016).
5. Drummond MF, Schwartz JS, Jönsson B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244-258; discussion 362-368.
6. Vallejo P, Saura RM, Sunol R, et al. A proposed adaptation of the EFQM fundamental concepts of excellence to health care based on the PATH framework. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006;18:327-335.
7. RosenmöllerM, Sampietro-Colom L, FarréM, et al. D4. 1 Reviewof best practices on undertaking and using HTA at Hospital level and description of European policies affecting Hospital based HTA. 2013. Confidential deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018).
8. AdHopHTA (Adopting hospital-based Health Technology Assessment in EU) research project, funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (Grant Agreement 305018) [Internet]. 2012-2015 [cited 2015 Jun 29]. www. adhophta. eu (accessed June 29, 2015).
9. AdHopHTA partners. The AdHopHTA toolkit: A toolkit for hospitalbased HealthTechnologyAssessment (HB-HTA); Public deliverable, The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018); 2015 [cited 2015 Sep 29]. http://www. adhophta. eu/toolkit (accessed June 29, 2015).
10. Lafortune L, Farand L, Mondou I, Sicotte C, Battista R. Assessing the performance of health technology assessment organizations: A framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:76-86.
11. Goodman C. Toward international good practices in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:169-170.
12. Gagnon M-P, Abdeljelil AB, Desmartis M, et al. Opportunities to promote efficiency in hospital decision-making through the use of health technology assessment. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF)-Research Reports, CHSRF series of reports on cost drivers and health system efficiency. Ottawa, CHSRF; 2011:1-28.
13. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Moynihan R, Paulsen EJ. Evidence-informed health policy 1-synthesis of findings from a multi-method study of organizations that support the use of research evidence. Implement Sci. 2008;3:53.
14. Battista RN. Expanding the scientific basis of health technology assessment: A research agenda for the next decade. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:275-280; discussion 280-282.
15. McGregor M, Brophy JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21;263-267.
16. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model R - version 2. 1 [updated April 22, 2015]. http://www. corehta. info/ BrowseModel. aspx (accessed July 14, 2015).
17. Lampe K, Mäkelä M. (editors). EUnetHTA core model for medical and surgical interventions. 1. 0R, 2008. www. eunethta. net (accessed November 3, 2014).
18. Lampe K, Pasternack I, (editors). EUnetHTA. HTA core model for diagnostic technologies. 1. 0R, 2008. www. eunethta. net (accessed September 23, 2014).
19. Hailey D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment: A checklist for HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19; 1-7.
20. Ølholm AM, Kidholm K, Birk-Olsen M, et al. D2. 2: Quality assessment of hospital-based HTA products. 2014, Confidential deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018).
21. Stafinski T, Topfer L-A, Zakariasen K, Menon D. The role of surgeons in identifying emerging technologies for health technology assessment. Can J Surg. 2010;53:86-92.
22. Gallego G, van Gool K, Kelleher D. Resource allocation and health technology assessment in Australia: Views from the local level. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:134-140.
23. Haselkorn A, Rosenstein AH, Rao AK, Van Zuiden M, Coye MJ. New technology planning and approval: Critical factors for success 13. Am J Med Qual. 2007;22:164-169.
24. MoharraM, EspallarguesM, 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.
25. Poulin P, Austen L, Kortbeek JB, Lafrenière R. New technologies and surgical innovation: Five years of a local health technology assessment program in a surgical department. Surg Innov. 2012;19:187-99.
26. Juzwishin D, Olmstead D, Menon D. Hospital-based technology assessment programmes: Two Canadian examples. World Hosp Health Serv. 1996;32:2-9.
27. Golan O, Hansen P, Kaplan G, Tal O. Health technology prioritization: Which criteria for prioritizing newtechnologies andwhat are their relative weights? Health Policy (New York). 2011;102:126-135.
28. Rubinstein A, Pichon-Riviere A, Augustovski F. Development and implementation of health technology assessment in Argentina: Two steps forward and one step back. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(Suppl 1):260-269.
29. Elshaug AG, et al. Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4;23.
30. Arentz-Hansen H, Bjørnebek Frønsdal K, Fure B, et al. D3. 1: Bridging Hospital HTA and National/Regional HTA Activities. 2013, Confidential Deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018).
31. Pasternak I, Halmesmäki E, Roine R, et al. D3. 2: Portfolio of patterns of collaboration between hospital-basedHTAand national/ regional HTA agencies. 2014, Confidential Deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018).
32. Mäkelä M, Roine RP. Health technology assessment in Finland. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009(Suppl 1):102-107.
33. 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.
34. Bennie M, Dear J, Hems S, et al. An investigation into the effect of advice from the Scottish Medicines Consortium on the use of medicines in Scotland's Health Service. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;71: 283-288.
35. Neumann PJ, Drummond MF, Jönsson B, et al. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:71-78.
36. [No authors listed]. Health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(Suppl 1);10.
37. Attieh R, Gagnon M-P. Implementation of local/hospital-based health technology assessment initiatives in low-and middle-income countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:445-451.
38. Andradas E, Blasco J-A, Valent?n B, López-Pedraza M-J, Gracia F-J. 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.
39. Luce BR, Brown RE. The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third-party payers in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995;11:79-92.