Cross-national comparison of technology assessment processes

Topic selection process in health technology assessment agencies around the world: a systematic review

Objective

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the process for topic selection by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies around the world to provide the knowledge base for the improvement of topic selection frameworks in HTA agencies.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE to identify papers up to February 2019. Gray literature was identified by screening the Web sites of HTA agencies on the nonprofit member list of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Data were extracted for each HTA agency and synthesized, with issues including general contextual information about each agency and the process of topic selection.

Results

Out of forty-nine nonprofit members of INAHTA, a total of seventeen HTA agencies with a framework for topic selection were identified from twenty-two included papers/documents. Multiple criteria were used for topic selection in all frameworks and agencies undertook multiple steps, which could include the specification of criteria for topic selection, identification of topics, short listing of potential topics, scoping of potential topics, scoring and ranking of potential topics, and deliberation and decision on final topics for HTA. Shortcomings were found in relation to methods of scoring and ranking as well as lack of monitoring and the evaluation of the process.

Conclusions

Our study provides insights into the current practice of topic selection in HTA agencies. Multiple criteria decision analysis methodology appears highly relevant to these processes. A consensus approach for the development of methods of topic selection would be valuable for the HTA community.

Systematic review and quality assessment of cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmaceutical therapies for advanced colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and assess the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of pharmaceutical therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

DATA SOURCES

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and EconLit databases were searched for the Medical Subject Headings or text key words quality-adjusted, QALY, life-year gained (LYG), and cost-effectiveness (January 1, 1999-December 31, 2009).

STUDY SELECTION

Original CEAs of mCRC pharmacotherapy published in English were included. CEAs that measured health effects in units other than quality-adjusted life years or LYG and letters to the editor, case reports, posters, and editorials were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Each article was independently assessed by 2 trained reviewers according to a quality checklist created by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

RESULTS

Twenty-four CEA studies pertaining to pharmaceutical therapies for mCRC were identified. All studies showed a wide variation in methodologic approaches, which resulted in a different range of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios reported for each regimen. We found common methodologic flaws in a significant number of CEA studies, including lack of clear description for critique of data quality; lack of method for adjusting costs for inflation and methods for obtaining expert judgment; no results of model validation; wide differences in the types of perspective, time horizon, study design, cost categories, and effect outcomes; and no quality assessment of data (cost and effectiveness) for the interventions evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown a wide variation in the methodology and quality of cost-effectiveness analysis for mCRC. Improving quality and harmonization of CEA for cancer treatment is needed. Further study is suggested to assess the quality of CEA methodology outside the mCRC disease state.

A markov model approach assessing the cost of illness of generalized anxiety disorder in Canada

INTRODUCTION

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is a chronic disease with waxing and waning of symptoms. This is the first comprehensive economic model developed to reflect the nature and course of GAD.

METHODS

An incidence-based probabilistic Markov model was developed reflecting nine GAD health states (HS): clinical assessments (three HS), maintenance therapies (four HS), discontinuation (one HS), and death (one HS). A probability curve of the GAD onset (ages 18-80) determined entry into the model and assumed patients retained the diagnoses until death. Canadian Psychiatric Association (CPA) guidelines determined pharmacotherapy, with revisions/validation by an expert panel. Direct costs (clinician, pharmacotherapy, hospitalization) were retrieved from government publications. Remission was based on pooled-analysis of CPA-cited evidence. Remaining clinical rates, absenteeism, and hospitalization were retrieved from the literature. Direct costs were attributed throughout the model except for the discontinuation and death HS. Indirect costs (wage rate) were retrieved from government publications and the literature (absenteeism), and were attributed to patients with GAD ≤65 years of age. Results were discounted at 5% and results expressed in 2008 Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

The mean lifetime cost of illness (COI) was estimated to be $31,213 (SD $9,100) per patient. The cost of absenteeism accounted for 96% of the mean COI. The mean age of onset was 31 years and approximately 19% did not respond to pharmacotherapy. Over 85% of patients discontinued treatment by the fourth cycle (2nd year of therapy). Over the course of the model, a mean of 53% of patients relapsed, with an average rate of 0.79 relapses per patient. On average and over a lifetime, the disorder went unmanaged over a period of 14 (SD 9) years. The model was most sensitive to absenteeism.

CONCLUSION

GAD is a costly disease with a lifetime COI <$32k/patient, with absenteeism exerting a significant impact.

Public and decision maker stated preferences for pharmaceutical subsidy decisions: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Consideration of public preferences is desirable when making decisions on the subsidy of pharmaceuticals. Little is known about the preferences of the public for pharmaceutical funding decisions, and no study has directly compared the preferences of members of a pharmaceutical decision-making body with those of the public on whose behalf decisions are made.

OBJECTIVE

This article reports the findings of a pilot discrete-choice experiment (DCE) undertaken to test the concept of evaluating the consistency of public and decision maker preferences for the public subsidy of pharmaceuticals.

METHODS

A DCE was used to elicit the relative importance of gains in survival, quality of life (QOL), chance of response success and government costs in pharmaceutical funding decisions, and the impact that the initial severity of illness has on preferences. The DCE was administered to a sample of the Australian public and members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and its Economic Subcommittee. A mixed logit model was employed for analysis.

RESULTS

For both samples, increased survival, QOL and chance of response success, and a reduction in cost or uncertainty (decision makers only), increased the likelihood that a pharmaceutical would be chosen for funding. Both samples were more likely to fund a pharmaceutical that was used for the treatment of severe illness.

CONCLUSION

This study sets the foundation for future research on the relative importance of decision criteria, the contexts that impact on the criteria and the extent to which funding decisions for pharmaceuticals in Australia and elsewhere are consistent with the preferences of society.

What aspects of the health technology assessment process recommended by international health technology assessment agencies received the most attention in Poland in 2008?

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to determine the extent to which international standards on transparency and quality are met by the health technology assessment (HTA) process in Poland. A secondary objective is to describe the outcomes of the HTA process and their associated factors.

Methods: All published online HTA appraisal and meeting proceedings on pharmaceutical products in 2008 were reviewed using a score card developed from international checklists recommended by INAHTA and ECHTA.

Results: The sixty-nine reports reviewed showed that five of nine transparency standards and six of eight quality standards were usually met by the HTA reports. Areas for improvement for transparency include inputs from external stakeholders, availability of English summaries, conclusions, implications of results, and suggested program of action. Areas of improvement for quality include appropriateness of target population and comparator/s, sufficiency of evidence on efficacy and safety, methodological rigor, economic model assumptions, and adaptation to the Polish setting. A consideration of the ethical and social consequences to the healthcare system must also be strengthened.

Conclusions: The study demonstrates that the incorporation and implementation of the HTA appraisal process in Poland has been successful. HTA appraisal reports in Poland have considered most of the international standards of transparency and quality. Recommendations for both HTA users and doers are forwarded for the improvement of the HTA process in the Polish setting.

Are Key Principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations?

Previously, our group-the International Working Group for HTA Advancement-proposed a set of fifteen Key Principles that could be applied to health technology assessment (HTA) programs in different jurisdictions and across a range of organizations and perspectives. In this commentary, we investigate the extent to which these principles are supported and used by fourteen selected HTA organizations worldwide. We find that some principles are broadly supported: examples include being explicit about HTA goals and scope; considering a wide range of evidence and outcomes; and being unbiased and transparent. Other principles receive less widespread support: examples are addressing issues of generalizability and transferability; being transparent on the link between HTA findings and decision-making processes; considering a full societal perspective; and monitoring the implementation of HTA findings. The analysis also suggests a lack of consensus in the field about some principles--for example, considering a societal perspective. Our study highlights differences in the uptake of key principles for HTA and indicates considerable room for improvement for HTA organizations to adopt principles identified to reflect good HTA practices. Most HTA organizations espouse certain general concepts of good practice--for example, assessments should be unbiased and transparent. However, principles that require more intensive follow-up--for example, monitoring the implementation of HTA findings--have received little support and execution.

Organizational and patient-related assessments in HTAs: State of the art

Objectives: The use and implementation of health technologies do influence and are influenced by organizational structures and processes as well as patient's experiences and actions. The objective of this study is to discuss the content and managing of organizational and patient-related assessments in HTAs.

Methods: Quantitative and qualitative analysis were performed based on a review of organizational and patient-related assessments included in a random sample of fifty HTA reports. The reports were identified from INAHTA members’ Web sites where homepages of HTA agencies where searched for full HTA reports, published in English or Scandinavian languages.

Results: HTA reports including organizational assessments mainly comprised issues related to process and structure, while issues such as control and evaluation of the technology were included less often. Cultural and environmental issues were included in a little over half of the reports. Reports including patient-related assessments mainly comprised psychological issues. Patients’ perceptions of the technology's effect on their health, patient-information, and social and ethical issues were included less often. Few reports included implications for the patient's significant others. There was considerable variation in how comprehensive the issues were managed as there was in the methodological transparency of the HTA reports.

Conclusions: There is room for improvement in the assessments of organizational and patient-related issues. Absence of a description of the considerations made when determining the content and methods of the assessments limits the usefulness of an HTA. The reader is left uncertain of the relevance and validity of the organizational and patient-related assessments.

Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were (i) to develop a systematic framework for describing and comparing different features of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, (ii) to identify and describe similarities and differences between the agencies, and (iii) to draw conclusions both for producers and users of HTA in research, policy, and practice.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search, added information from HTA agencies, and developed a conceptual framework comprising eight main domains: organization, scope, processes, methods, dissemination, decision, implementation, and impact. We grouped relevant items of these domains in an evidence table and chose five HTA agencies to test our framework: DAHTA@DIMDI, HAS, IQWiG, NICE, and SBU. Item and domain similarity was assessed using the percentage of identical characteristics in pairwise comparisons across agencies. RESULTS were interpreted across agencies by demonstrating similarities and differences.

RESULTS

Based on 306 included documents, we identified 90 characteristics of eight main domains appropriate for our framework. After applying the framework to the five agencies, we were able to show 40 percent similarities in "dissemination," 38 percent in "scope," 35 percent in "organization," 29 percent in "methods," 26 percent in "processes," 23 percent in "impact," 19 percent in "decision," and 17 percent in "implementation."

CONCLUSION

We found considerably more differences than similarities of HTA features across agencies and countries. Our framework and comparison provides insights and clarification into the need for harmonization. Our findings could serve as descriptive database facilitating communication between producers and users.

Health technology assessment: A comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario

Objectives:This study describes the development of a framework for health technology decisions, for Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (OHTAC) in Ontario, Canada.

Methods:OHTAC convened a “Decision Determinants Sub-Committee” in January 2007, which undertook a systematic literature review and conducted key informant interviews to develop an explicit decision-making framework.

Results:The “Decision Determinants Sub-Committee” offered recommendations about decision criteria, and the process by which decisions are made. Decision criteria include (i) overall clinical benefit, (ii) consistency with societal and ethical values, (iii) value for money, and (iv) feasibility of adoption into the health system. The decision process should be transparent and fair and should use a deliberative process in delivering recommendations.

Conclusions:This methodology is currently being pilot tested in a live environment: OHTAC. It will be evaluated and revised according to its feasibility, acceptability, and perceived usefulness.

Evidence-informed health policy 2 - survey of organizations that support the use of research evidence

Background

Previous surveys of organizations that support the development of evidence-informed health policies have focused on organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or undertake health technology assessments (HTAs). Only rarely have surveys focused at least in part on units that directly support the use of research evidence in developing health policy on an international, national, and state or provincial level (i.e., government support units, or GSUs) that are in some way successful or innovative or that support the use of research evidence in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods

We drew on many people and organizations around the world, including our project reference group, to generate a list of organizations to survey. We modified a questionnaire that had been developed originally by the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation in Europe (AGREE) collaboration and adapted one version of the questionnaire for organizations producing CPGs and HTAs, and another for GSUs. We sent the questionnaire by email to 176 organizations and followed up periodically with non-responders by email and telephone.

Results

We received completed questionnaires from 152 (86%) organizations. More than one-half of the organizations (and particularly HTA agencies) reported that examples from other countries were helpful in establishing their organization. A higher proportion of GSUs than CPG- or HTA-producing organizations involved target users in the selection of topics or the services undertaken. Most organizations have few (five or fewer) full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. More than four-fifths of organizations reported providing panels with or using systematic reviews. GSUs tended to use a wide variety of explicit valuation processes for the research evidence, but none with the frequency that organizations producing CPGs, HTAs, or both prioritized evidence by its quality. Between one-half and two-thirds of organizations do not collect data systematically about uptake, and roughly the same proportions do not systematically evaluate their usefulness or impact in other ways.

Conclusion

The findings from our survey, the most broadly based of its kind, both extend or clarify the applicability of the messages arising from previous surveys and related documentary analyses, such as how the 'principles of evidence-based medicine dominate current guideline programs' and the importance of collaborating with other organizations. The survey also provides a description of the history, structure, processes, outputs, and perceived strengths and weaknesses of existing organizations from which those establishing or leading similar organizations can draw.

Assessing the reporting and scientific quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of treatments for anxiety disorders

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) constitute the highest level of evidence, but their usefulness depends on their quality.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reporting and scientific quality of meta-analyses of RCTs on treatments for anxiety disorders.

METHODS

Criteria for peer-reviewed, full-text retrieval included meta-analyses of RCTs of drugs versus active ingredient placebo, standard care, or psychotherapy. Sample populations were required to meet Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems diagnostic criteria for anxiety disorders. Two reviewers independently searched EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid HealthSTAR, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception to August 2007. Search terms included meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, anxiety, anxiolytic, anti-depressant/antidepressant, and pharmacotherapy, without language restrictions. References and reviews were searched manually. Quality was assessed independently by 2 raters, using the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) and the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ). The QUOROM was used to assess the reporting quality of the study, using an 18-item checklist, and the scientific quality was assessed with the OQAQ's 10-item checklist. Kendall's tau measured interrater reliability with statistical significance at p less than or equal to 0.01. Means and standard deviations described the overall quality. A time series analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 136 titles and abstracts were reviewed; 48 were retrieved, including 6 from the manual search. Thirty-two were excluded (not pooled analyses, inappropriate condition/treatment, duplications), leaving 16 studies published between 1995 and 2007. Agreement was high: tau = 0.801 (p < 0.01) for QUOROM and 0.834 (p < 0.01) for OQAQ. QUOROM quality scored 61% +/- 19%. Overall, the results sections of the studies scored lowest, while the introduction and discussion sections scored highest. The overall scientific quality was 58% +/- 28%. Most studies appropriately linked results to primary objectives but did not report how bias was avoided or how study validity was assessed. Quality increased nonsignificantly over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting/scientific quality was considered less than fair-to-good. Stakeholders should strive for higher scientific quality of meta-analyses.

Assessing the performance of health technology assessment organizations: a framework

In light of growing demands for public accountability, the broadening scope of health technology assessment organizations (HTAOs) activities and their increasing role in decision-making underscore the importance for them to demonstrate their performance. Based on Parson's social action theory, we propose a conceptual model that includes four functions an organization needs to balance to perform well: (i) goal attainment, (ii) production, (iii) adaptation to the environment, and (iv) culture and values maintenance. From a review of the HTA literature, we identify specific dimensions pertaining to the four functions and show how they relate to performance. We compare our model with evaluations reported in the scientific and gray literature to confirm its capacity to accommodate various evaluation designs, contexts of evaluation, and organizational models and perspectives. Our findings reveal the dimensions of performance most often assessed and other important ones that, hitherto, remain unexplored. The model provides a flexible and theoretically grounded tool to assess the performance of HTAOs.

Has NICE got it right? An international perspective considering the case of Technology Appraisal No. 98 by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has been widely recognised as setting an international standard for high-quality health technology assessments (HTAs) including economic evaluation.

SCOPE

A previous critical analysis of NICE Technology Appraisal No. 98 (TA98), evaluating methylphenidate, dexamphetamine and atomoxetine for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children, revealed a number of issues, which must cast doubt on the robustness of the NICE approach when addressing a complex clinical decision problem. The exploration of potential underlying problems will be followed by a discussion of lessons for international healthcare policy-makers, and is intended to be an invitation to further debate and inquiry, not a presentation of definitive conclusions.

SYMPTOMS

Pertaining to the technology assessment report, potential problems were identified relating to an unnecessarily narrow scope, data search and selection strategy, the distinction between efficacy and effectiveness, data synthesis across studies and clinical effect measures, and limitations of the economic model. The appraisal process moderated the asserted 'clear conclusions' of the assessment but could not compensate for some of its gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

It is suggested that key issues contributing to these problems may have included a separation of clinical and economic perspectives, a highly standardised reference case analysis that was followed schematically, the absence of an effective system for quality assurance of technology assessments, and transparency deficits of the economic evaluation. Further considerations for international policy-makers looking at NICE as a potential role model for HTAs are discussed, such as institutional context, the objectives of collectively financed healthcare and related value judgments, the reliance on QALYs as a universal and comprehensive measure of health benefits, the appropriate perspective for analysis, and process-related implications.

Health technology assessment agencies: An international overview of organizational aspects

Objectives:The aim of the study is to make an international comparison of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Agencies, to show their similarities and differences.

Methods:An e-mail questionnaire was sent to thirty HTA agencies internationally. Questions related to the structure of the agency, the relationship with health-related institutions, the prescriptiveness of the decisions taken, the main core and the modalities to spread the assessment, and the type of funding.

Results:Twenty-four HTA Agencies answered the questionnaire: 25 percent in America, 4.2 percent in Australia, and 70.8 percent in Europe. Fifty-four percent of HTA Agencies are governmental institutions (83.3 percent have central government funding), while 62.5 percent have relationships with health-related governmental institutions. Of the agencies, 87 percent reported that their decisions are not prescriptive, while for 20.8 percent and 8.3 percent of them stated that this was the case totally or partially, respectively, especially for the governmental and American Agencies. Seventeen agencies (70.8 percent) declared their work on multiannual programs (77 percent of the governmental HTA Agencies and 100 percent of the American ones). The assessments mainly addressed diagnostic procedures (85.7 percent) and pharmaceuticals (25 percent). The most common way to disseminate results is by means of paper report (91.7 percent), followed by the Internet (16.7 percent), and seminars to expert audiences (12.5 percent).

Conclusions:The comparative analysis of HTA Agencies showed that governmental and American Agencies have a profound impact on the prescriptiveness of their assessment, and this could be linked to the fact that these types of Agencies work on multiannual programs. European and American HTA Agencies have many similarities in terms of type of assessment, funding, and dissemination of results.

Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to identify and compare various practical and current approaches of health technology assessment (HTA) priority setting.

METHODS

A literature search was performed across PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and Cochrane. Given an earlier review conducted by European agencies (EUR-ASSESS project), the search was limited to literature indexed from 1996 onward. We also searched Web sites of HTA agencies as well as HTAi and ISTAHC conference abstracts. Agency representatives were contacted for information about their priority-setting processes. Reports on practical approaches selected through these sources were identified independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

A total of twelve current priority-setting frameworks from eleven agencies were identified. Ten countries were represented: Canada, Denmark, England, Hungary, Israel, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, and United States. Fifty-nine unique HTA priority-setting criteria were divided into eleven categories (alternatives; budget impact; clinical impact; controversial nature of proposed technology; disease burden; economic impact; ethical, legal, or psychosocial implications; evidence; interest; timeliness of review; variation in rates of use). Differences across HTA agencies were found regarding procedures for categorizing, scoring, and weighing of policy criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Variability exists in the methods for priority setting of health technology assessment across HTA agencies. Quantitative rating methods and consideration of cost benefit for priority setting were seldom used. These study results will assist HTA agencies that are re-visiting or developing their prioritization methods.

Cost-effectiveness modeling research of pharmacologic therapy to prevent osteoporosis-related fractures

Osteoporotic fractures are common among postmenopausal women and elderly men, and they cause substantial direct medical costs and loss of quality of life. The potential costs of widespread intervention strategies to reduce the incidence of fractures are also quite high. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of such interventions is highly significant to large-scale health insurers and healthcare systems. Most modeling studies to date have examined the cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment for subsets of postmenopausal women selected on the basis of bone mineral density and/or prevalent vertebral fracture. They generally suggest that oral bisphosphonates and raloxifene are cost-effective therapies for these subsets. Increasingly, modeling studies of treatments for those selected on the basis of absolute fracture risk rather than bone density criteria are being done to establish absolute fracture risk thresholds at which various treatments are cost-effective.

Recommendations in health technology assessments worldwide

Objectives:The objective of this study is to analyze statistically the possible determinants and implications of including or not including recommendations in health technology assessments (HTAs).

Methods:A sample of 433 HTAs published by eleven leading institutions or agencies in nine countries was reviewed and analyzed statistically by multiple logistic regression.

Results:The extent of policy and research recommendations in HTAs varies greatly from country to country. The content and scope of HTAs have some impact on recommendations. Extensive assessment of economic and organizational aspects increases the likelihood of including policy recommendations. Extensive assessment of technological and patient aspects increases the likelihood of including research recommendations, whereas extensive focus on economic aspects is negatively related to research recommendations. The most striking result is that the use of external partners for assessment increases the likelihood of including research recommendations in HTAs but not policy recommendations.

Conclusions:HTA commissioners, agencies, institutions, and funding authorities need to be aware of the consequences of the choices they make in advance of assessing health technologies. Outsourcing HTA to external partners suggests a greater likelihood of being told that “more research is needed.” The scope and content of HTAs has an impact on the type of recommendations, and country-specific preferences are strong predictors of recommendations in HTAs.

Impact of CEDIT recommendations: An example of health technology assessment in a hospital network

Objectives: The objective of this study is to assess the impact of CEDIT (French Committee for the Assessment and Dissemination of Technological Innovations) recommendations on the introduction of technological innovations within the AP-HP (Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris), the French hospital network to which this body is attached.

Methods: In 2002, a study based on semidirective interviews of fourteen people affected by these recommendations and a case study relating to thirteen recommendations issued between 1995 and 1998 were conducted.

Results: The CEDIT is very scientifically reputable among interviewees. There is generally widespread interest for the recommendations. They are used as decision-making tools by administrative staff and as negotiating instruments by doctors in their dealings with management. Based on the case study, ten of thirteen recommendations had an impact on the introduction of the technology in health establishments. One recommendation appears not to have had an impact. Furthermore, the impact of two technologies was impossible to assess.

Conclusions: This study highlights the significant impact of recommendations arising from a structure that is attached to a hospital network and the good match between CEDIT's objectives and its assignments.

What influences the choice of assessment methods in health technology assessments? Statistical analysis of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002

Objectives:Health technology assessment (HTA) has been used as input in decision making worldwide for more than 25 years. However, no uniform definition of HTA or agreement on assessment methods exists, leaving open the question of what influences the choice of assessment methods in HTAs. The objective of this study is to analyze statistically a possible relationship between methods of assessment used in practical HTAs, type of assessed technology, type of assessors, and year of publication.

Methods:A sample of 433 HTAs published by eleven leading institutions or agencies in nine countries was reviewed and analyzed by multiple logistic regression.

Results:The study shows that outsourcing of HTA reports to external partners is associated with a higher likelihood of using assessment methods, such as meta-analysis, surveys, economic evaluations, and randomized controlled trials; and with a lower likelihood of using assessment methods, such as literature reviews and “other methods.” The year of publication was statistically related to the inclusion of economic evaluations and shows a decreasing likelihood during the year span. The type of assessed technology was related to economic evaluations with a decreasing likelihood, to surveys, and to “other methods” with a decreasing likelihood when pharmaceuticals were the assessed type of technology.

Conclusions:During the period from 1989 to 2002, no major developments in assessment methods used in practical HTAs were shown statistically in a sample of 433 HTAs worldwide. Outsourcing to external assessors has a statistically significant influence on choice of assessment methods.

Time-trends in health technology assessments: An analysis of developments in composition of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002

Objectives: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) as a method for producing evidence in the health-care sector has been used for more than 25 years but has grown in extent during the past years. The objective of this study is to explore a possible evolution in these HTAs, in type of assessed technologies, in type of assessors, and in its methods.

Methods: A structured literature review was conducted of 433 HTA reports from the period 1989 to 2002 by eleven leading HTA institutions worldwide. The review focused on the methodology used, the assessors, and the assessed technologies and was designed to elucidate general time-trends in the practical application of HTA.

Results: The study shows that literature reviews are still the most often used method of assessment and accounts for a relatively stable fraction of assessments. The fraction of economic evaluations shows a slightly decreasing trend in contrast to randomized controlled trials and modeling/evaluations, which are applied more frequently. The data also demonstrate a more frequent use of external partners as assessors and a shift between devices and pharmaceuticals as assessed technologies.

Conclusions: The study shows an increase in the number of HTAs but no major developments in assessment methods used and, therefore, no widespread spillover from the development in research methods in general to the field of HTA methodology.