Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Clinical Epidemiology pp 417–441Cite as

Evidence-Based Decision-Making 3: Health Technology Assessment

  • Protocol
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 1281))

Abstract

This chapter begins with a brief introduction to health technology assessment (HTA). HTA is concerned with the systematic evaluation of the consequences of the adoption and use of new health technologies and improving the evidence on existing technologies. The objective of mainstream HTA is to support evidence-based decision- and policy-making that encourage the uptake of efficient and effective health care technologies. This chapter provides a basic framework for conducting an HTA as well as some fundamental concepts and challenges in assessing health technologies. A case study of the assessment of drug eluting stents in Ontario is presented to illustrate the HTA process. Whether HTA is beneficial—supporting timely access to needed technologies—or detrimental depends on three critical issues: when the assessment is performed; how it is performed; and how the findings are used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Protocol
USD   49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Springer Nature is developing a new tool to find and evaluate Protocols. Learn more

References

  1. Facey K (2006) INAHTA health technology assessment (HTA) glossary. http://htaglossary.net/HomePage. Accessed 15 Apr 2014

  2. Goodman CS (2004) Introduction to health technology assessment. The Lewin Group, Falls Church, VA

    Google Scholar 

  3. Banta D (2003) The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 63(2):121–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Goodman CS, Snider G, Flynn K (1996) Health care technology assessment in VA, 1996. Management Decision and Research Center, Health Services Research and Development Service, Washington, DC, pp 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jonsson E et al (2002) Summary report of the ECHTA/ECAHI project. European collaboration for health technology assessment/assessment of health interventions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18(2):218–237

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Poulsen PB (1999) Economic evaluation and the diffusion of health technology. Health technology assessment and diffusion of health technology. Odense University Press, Odense, pp 183–220

    Google Scholar 

  7. Franklin C (1993) Basic concepts and fundamental issues in technology assessment. Intensive Care Med 19(2):117–121

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H (2010) Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26(3):341–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Noorani HZ et al (2007) Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23(3):310–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2003) CADTH: home page [web site]. The Agency, Ottawa, ON

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lampe K et al (2009) The HTA core model: a novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25(S2):9–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hofmann BM (2008) Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24(04):423–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2008) Social value judgments: principles for the development of NICE guidance. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, pp 1–36

    Google Scholar 

  14. Giacomini M et al (2012) Social and ethical values for health technology assessment in Ontario. Health Quality Ontario Social Values and Ethics Evaluation Subcommittee, Toronto, ON

    Google Scholar 

  15. INAHTA Ethics Working Group (2005) INAHTA’s working group on handling ethical issues. Final report, Final report, June 2005

    Google Scholar 

  16. Niederstadt C, Droste S (2010) Reporting and presenting information retrieval processes: the need for optimizing common practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26(4):450–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Beauchamp TL, Childress J (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Assasi N et al (2014) Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 14(2):203–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Van der Wilt GJ, Reuzel R, Banta HD (2000) The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth 21(1):103–115

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Arellano LE, Willett JM, Borry P (2011) International survey on attitudes toward ethics in health technology assessment: an exploratory study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 27(1):50–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Saarni SI et al (2008) Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bull World Health Organ 86(8):617–623

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hofmann B (2005) On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis Prax 3(4):277–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jadad AR, Moher D, Klassen TP (1998) Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: II. How did the authors find the studies and assess their quality? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 152(8):812–817

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Goodman CS (2004) Retrieving evidence for HTA, in HTA 101: introduction to health technology assessment. Lewin Group, Falls Church, VA

    Google Scholar 

  25. Moher D et al (2003) The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess 7(41):1–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Savoie I et al (2003) Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19(1):168–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Royle P, Waugh N (2003) Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. Health Technol Assess 7(34):iii, ix-51

    Google Scholar 

  28. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 510. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  29. U.S. National Library of Medicine (1991) Databases, bibliographic, in MeSH database. US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD

    Google Scholar 

  30. Centre for Reviews Dissemination University of York (2009) Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. The Centre, York

    Google Scholar 

  31. Last JM (2001) A dictionary of epidemiology, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. McAuley L et al (2000) Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 356(9237):1228–1231

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Institute of Health Economics, Osteba, and AUnEts (2013) Health technology assessment on the Net international: 2013. Institute of Health Economics (IHE), Edmonton, AB

    Google Scholar 

  34. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Information Services (2014) Grey matters: a practical deep-web search tool for evidence-based medicine. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, ON

    Google Scholar 

  35. Library and Archives Canada (2008) Theses Canada portal. Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa, ON

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jizba R (2007) Measuring search effectiveness. In: Creighton University (ed) Creighton University Health Sciences Library and Learning Resources Center. Creighton University, Omaha, NE

    Google Scholar 

  37. Straus SE et al (2005) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM, 3rd edn. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Liberati A et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Heitman E (1998) Ethical issues in technology assessment. Conceptual categories and procedural considerations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 14(3):544–566

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Guyatt G, Rennie D (2002) User’s guides to the medical literature, vol 5. American Medical Association Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  41. Antman EM et al (1992) A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 268(2):240–248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1993) The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad Sci 703:125–133, discussion 133-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  44. Coburn D (2007) Managing decision making under uncertainty: perspectives from a central administrator. In: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (ed) OECD Health Project. Health technologies and decision making. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris, pp 119–130

    Google Scholar 

  45. Goeree R, Levin L (2006) Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: the PRUFE framework – an integral part of Ontario’s evidence-based HTPA process. Pharmacoeconomics 24(11):1143–1156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. McIsaac ML, Goeree R, Brophy JM (2007) Primary data collection in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23(1):24–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM (2003) Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 290(12):1624–1632

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lilford RJ et al (2001) Issues in methodological research: perspectives from researchers and commissioners. Health Technol Assess 5(8):1–57

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Health Technology Assessment Task Group (2004) Health technology strategy 10: final report. Health Canada, Ottawa, ON

    Google Scholar 

  50. Detsky AS, Naglie IG (1990) A clinician’s guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 113(2):147–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Drummond M et al (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  52. Eisenberg JM (1989) Clinical economics. A guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 262(20):2879–2886

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Tarride JE et al (2009) Approaches for economic evaluations of health care technologies. J Am Coll Radiol 6(5):307–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Poulsen PB (2001) The economy. In: Kristensen FB, Horder M, Poulsen PB (eds) Health technology assessment handbook. Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment, Copenhagen, pp 96–121

    Google Scholar 

  55. Weinstein M, Stason W (1977) Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 296:716–721

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Canadian Agency for Drugs Technologies in Health (2006) Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada, vol 3. Canadian Agency for Drugs Technologies in Health, Ottawa, ON

    Google Scholar 

  57. Drummond M, Weatherly H (2000) Implementing the findings of health technology assessments. If the CAT got out of the bag, can the TAIL wag the dog? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16(1):1–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. George CJ et al (1998) One-year follow-up of the Stent Restenosis (STRESS I) Study. Am J Cardiol 81(7):860–865

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Macaya C et al (1996) Continued benefit of coronary stenting versus balloon angioplasty: one-year clinical follow-up of Benestent trial. Benestent Study Group 13. J Am Coll Cardiol 27(2):255–261

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Stone GW et al (2004) One-year clinical results with the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS stent: the TAXUS-IV trial 14. Circulation 109(16):1942–1947

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Medical Advisory Service (2003) Review of drug-eluting coronary stents [Internal document]. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, Toronto, ON, pp 1–23

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (2007) OHTAC recommendation: drug eluting stents (DES). Medical Advisory Secretariat Ministry of Health and Long-term Care, Toronto, ON

    Google Scholar 

  63. Pan American Health Organization (1998) Developing health technology assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  64. Mowatt G et al (1998) When is the ‘right’ time to initiate an assessment of a health technology? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 14(2):372–386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Sculpher M, Drummond M, Buxton M (1997) The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy 2(1):26–30

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Buxton M (1987) Problems in the economic appraisal of new health technology: the evaluation of heart transplants I the UK. In: Drummond M (ed) Economic appraisal of health technology in the European Community. Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford, pp 103–118

    Google Scholar 

  67. Eisenberg JM (1999) Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA 282(19):1865–1869

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Stevens A, Milne R, Burls A (2003) Health technology assessment: history and demand. J Public Health Med 25(2):98–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH), St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Suite 2000, West 25 Main Street, Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8P 1H1

    Daria O’Reilly M.Sc., Ph.D., Kaitryn Campbell M.L.I.S., James M. Bowen B.Sc., Phm., M.Sc., Nazila Assasi M.D., Ph.D. & Ron Goeree M.A.

  2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Daria O’Reilly M.Sc., Ph.D., Kaitryn Campbell M.L.I.S., Meredith Vanstone B.A., Ph.D., James M. Bowen B.Sc., Phm., M.Sc., Lisa Schwartz, Nazila Assasi M.D., Ph.D. & Ron Goeree M.A.

  3. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Meredith Vanstone B.A., Ph.D. & Lisa Schwartz

Authors
  1. Daria O’Reilly M.Sc., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kaitryn Campbell M.L.I.S.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meredith Vanstone B.A., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James M. Bowen B.Sc., Phm., M.Sc.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lisa Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nazila Assasi M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ron Goeree M.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daria O’Reilly M.Sc., Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada

    Patrick S. Parfrey

  2. Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada

    Brendan J. Barrett

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

O’Reilly, D. et al. (2015). Evidence-Based Decision-Making 3: Health Technology Assessment. In: Parfrey, P., Barrett, B. (eds) Clinical Epidemiology. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 1281. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2428-8_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2428-8_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2427-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2428-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation