A Model-Based Study to Estimate the Health and Economic Impact of Health Technology Assessment in Thailand

How to strengthen societal impact of research and innovation? Lessons learned from an explanatory research-on-research study on participatory knowledge infrastructures funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development

BACKGROUND

Scientific research and innovation can generate societal impact via different pathways. Productive interactions, such as collaboration between researchers and relevant stakeholders, play an important role and have increasingly gained interest of health funders around the globe. What works, how and why in research partnerships to generate societal impact in terms of knowledge utilisation is still not well-known. To explore these issues, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) initiated an exploratory research-on-research study with a focus on participatory knowledge infrastructures (PKIs) that they fund in the field of public health and healthcare. PKIs are sustainable infrastructures in which knowledge production, dissemination and utilisation takes place via committed collaboration between researchers and stakeholders from policy, practice and/or education. Examples are learning networks, academic collaborative centres, care networks and living labs. The aim of the study was twofold: to gain insights in what constitutes effective collaboration in PKIs; and to learn and improve the research governance, particularly of ZonMw as part of their dissemination and implementation activities.

METHODS

During 2020-2022, we conducted a literature review on long-term research partnerships, analysed available documentation of twenty ZonMw-funded PKIs, surveyed participants of the 2021 European Implementation Event, interviewed steering committee members, organized a Group Decision Room with lecturers, and validated the findings with key experts.

RESULTS

We identified eight mechanisms ('how and why') that are conditional for effective collaboration in PKIs: transdisciplinary collaboration; defining a shared ambition; doing justice to everyone's interests; investing in personal relationships; a professional organisation or structure; a meaningful collaborative process; mutual trust, sufficient time for and continuity of collaboration. Several factors ('what') may hinder (e.g., lack of ownership or structural funding) or facilitate (e.g., stakeholder commitment, embeddedness in an organisation or policy) effective collaboration in research partnerships.

CONCLUSION

To use the study results in policy, practice, education, and/or (further) research, cultural and behavioural change of all stakeholders is needed. To facilitate this, we provide recommendations for funding organisations, particularly ZonMw and its partners within the relevant knowledge ecosystem. It is meant as a roadmap towards the realisation and demonstration of societal impact of (health) research and innovation in the upcoming years.

Introduction to the Special Issue on "Building Institutions for Priority Setting in Health"

In the pursuit of universal health coverage, countries are invariably confronted with questions about which services to pay with public funds, to whom, and at what cost. Such priority-setting processes have major ramifications for the costs and benefits of care delivered. These processes are not just technical, but also highly political and organizational in nature and expressions of social values. This special issue focuses on building institutions for priority setting in health. These institutions serve a public purpose and are primarily concerned with conducting or using health technology assessment (HTA) to inform resource allocation decisions. We first define the concept of institutions for priority setting in health and the methodological considerations of assessing and evaluating these institutions. Next, we present key common themes and summarize key messages across the articles, including lessons learned and future challenges in building these institutions.

Fifteen Lessons from Fifteen Years of the Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program in Thailand

The Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP) was established in 2007. This article highlights 15 lessons from over 15 years of experience, noting five achievements about what HITAP has done well, five areas that it is currently working on, and five aims for work in the future. HITAP built capacity for HTA and linked research to policy and practice in Thailand. With collaborators from academic and policy spheres, HITAP has mobilized regional and global support, and developed global public goods to enhance the field of HTA. HITAP's semi-autonomous structure has facilitated these changes, though they have not been without their challenges. HITAP aims to continue its work on HTA for public health interventions and disinvestments, effectively engaging with stakeholders and strategically managing its human resources. Moving forward, HITAP will develop and update global public goods on HTA, work on emerging topics such as early HTA, address issues in digital health, real-world evidence and equity, support HTA development globally, particularly in low-income settings, and seek to engage more effectively with the public. HITAP seeks to learn from its experience and invest in the areas identified so that it can grow sustainably. Its journey may be relevant to other countries and institutions that are interested in developing HTA programs.

Harnessing Health Technology Assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean: Keeping the Region on Course

Latin America and the Caribbean has made significant progress toward universal health coverage (UHC), but health spending efficiency, equity, and sustainability remain major challenges-and progress is hindered by the difficult macroeconomic context. Health technology assessment (HTA) can make resource allocation more efficient and equitable when systematically used to inform coverage decisions. We highlight five considerations that need to be taken into account to realize the full potential of HTA in the LAC region: i) explicitly link HTA to decision-making and anchor it in legal frameworks, ii) systematically incorporate the opportunity cost as a core principle into HTA activities informing coverage decisions, iii) make the internationally available evidence more fit for purpose for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), iv) incorporate pragmatism as a key principle of HTA activities in the region, and v) institutionalize the monitoring of HTA processes and results.

Civil society and medical product access in Africa: Lessons from COVID-19

Understanding health as a human right creates a legal obligation on countries to ensure access to timely, acceptable, and affordable health care. We highlight the importance of a meaningful role for civil society in improving access to well-regulated quality medical products in Africa; to support and be part of a regional social contract approach following the access issues that have been particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that African communities have a clear participatory role as important stakeholders in the regulatory lifecycle. Solidarity is important for a cohesive approach as formal government healthcare infrastructure may be minimal for some countries, with little training of communities available for disease management and insufficient money to fund people to organise and deliver health care. Some of the issues for civil society engagement with multi-stakeholders, and possible mitigating strategies, are tabulated to initiate discussion on facilitators and concerns of governments and other stakeholders for meaningful participation by patients, communities and civil society within a regional regulatory lifecycle approach. Solidarity is called for to address issues of equity, ethics and morality, stigmatisation and mutual empowerment - to sustainably support the region and national governments to develop greater self-sufficiency throughout the regulatory lifecycle. By creating a participatory space, patients, communities and civil society can be invited in with clear missions and supported by well-defined guidance to create a true sense of solidarity and social cohesion. Strong leadership coupled with the political will to share responsibilities in all aspects of this work is key.

What is the value of explicit priority setting for health interventions? A simulation study

Many countries seek to secure efficiency in health spending through establishing explicit priority setting institutions (PSIs). Since such institutions divert resources from frontline services which benefit patients directly, it is legitimate and reasonable to ask whether they are worth the money. We address this question by comparing, through simulation, the health benefits and costs from implementing two alternative funding approaches – one scenario in which an active PSI enables cost-effectiveness-threshold based funding decisions, and a counterfactual scenario where there is no PSI. We present indicative results for one dataset from the United Kingdom (published in 2015) and one from Malawi (published in 2018), which show that the threshold rule reliably resulted in decreased health system costs, improved health benefits, or both. Our model is implemented in Microsoft Excel and designed to be user-friendly, and both the model and a user guide are made publicly available, in order to enable others to parameterise the model based on the local setting. Although inevitably stylised, we believe that our modelling and results offer a valid perspective on the added value of explicit PSIs.