Best-worst scaling to assess the most important barriers and facilitators for the use of health technology assessment in Austria

References

• Eddama O, Coast J. A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making. Health Policy. 2008;86(2):129–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brousselle A, Lessard C. Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making: promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(6):832–839.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panteli D, Kreis J, Busse R. Considering equity in health technology assessment: an exploratory analysis of agency practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(5):314–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanney SR, Gonzalez-Block MA, Buxton MJ, et al. The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst. 2003;1(1):2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hivon M, Lehoux P, Denis J-L, et al. Use of health technology assessment in decision making: coresponsibility of users and producers? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(02):268–275.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eddy D. Health technology assessment and evidence‐based medicine: what are we talking about? Value in Health. 2009;12(s2):S6–S7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• World Health Organization. Health Technology Assessment 2017 [cited 2017 May 23]. Available from: http://www.who.int/health-technology-assessment/about/en/
   Google Scholar
• European network for Health Technology Assessment. What is Health Technology Assessment (HTA) n.d. [cited 2017 May 22]. Available from: http://www.eunethta.eu/about-us/faq - t287n73
   Google Scholar
• Chinitz D. Health technology assessment in four countries: response from political science. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(1):55–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicod E, Kanavos P. Commonalities and differences in HTA outcomes: a comparative analysis of five countries and implications for coverage decisions. Health Policy. 2012;108(2):167–177.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Mochón L, Balbino JE, de Labry Lima AO, et al. HTA and decision-making processes in central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe: results from a survey. Health Policy. 2017.  pii: S0168-8510(17)30085-4. [Epub ahead of print].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher I, Zechmeister I. Auswirkungen der HTA-Forschung auf das Gesundheitswesen in Österreich. Teil Methodenübersicht – Update. Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Wild C. Austria: history of health technology assessment during the past 20 years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25(S1):74–81.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Antony K, Fröschl B, Rosian-Shikuta I, et al. Health Technology Assessment - Einsatz und Bedarf in Österreich und Implikationen für die Verankerung in Österreich. Vienna: Gesundheit Österreich GMBH; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, et al. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann C, Von Der Schulenburg J-MG. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making: a European survey. Health Policy. 2000;52(3):179–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Weatherly H. Implementing the findings of health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(01):1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Velden ME, Severens JL, Novak A. Economic evaluations of healthcare programmes and decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(11):1075–1082.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung KL, Evers S, Vries H, et al. Most important barriers and facilitators regarding the use of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(2):1–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value in Health. 2011;14(4):403–413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung KL, Wijnen BF, Hollin IL, et al. Using best–Worst scaling to investigate preferences in health care. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34(12):1195–1209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potoglou D, Burge P, Flynn T, et al. Best–worst scaling vs. Discrete Choice Experiments: an Empirical Comparison Using Social Care Data. Social Science & Medicine. 2011;72(10):1717–1727.
   Google Scholar
• Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, et al. Best–worst scaling: what it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ. 2007;26(1):171–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guarte JM, Barrios EB. Estimation under purposive sampling. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2006;35(2):277–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austrian Public Health Institute. [ cited 2017 May 30]. HTA-Guide. Available from: http://hta-guide.biqg.at/?q=en/node/60
   Google Scholar
• Mayer S, Kiss N, Laszewska A, et al. Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0183116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer S, Kiss N, Laszewska A, et al. Health Economic Costing Methods and Reporting in Austria. Value in Health. 2016;19(7):A363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A, Zweifel P, et al. Experimental measurement of preferences in health and healthcare using best-worst scaling: an overview. Health Econ Rev. 2016;6(1):2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee JA, Soutar GN, Louviere J. Measuring values using best‐worst scaling: the LOV example. Psychol Marketing. 2007;24(12):1043–1058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawtooth Software. Counting analysis. [ cited 2017 Jun 5]. Available from: https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/help/lighthouse-studio/manual/hid_web_maxdiff_counting.html
   Google Scholar
• Mühlbacher AC, Kaczynski A, Zweifel P. Experimentelle Präferenzmessung im Gesundheitswesen mit Hilfe von Best-Worst Scaling (BWS). PharmacoEconomics Ger Res Articles. 2013;11(2):101–117.
   Google Scholar
• Sawtooth Software. Fit statistic and identifying random responders. [ cited 2017 Jun 5]. Available from: https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/help/lighthouse-studio/manual/hid_web_maxdiff_badrespondents.html
   Google Scholar
• Schumacher I, Zechmeister I. Auswirkungen der HTA-Forschung auf das Gesundheitswesen in Österreich. Teil 2. Ergebnisse der empirischen Erhebung. Projektbericht. Nr. 37b. Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Chancellery. 15a B-VG Zielsteuerung-Gesundheit. [ cited 2017 Jun 19]. Available from: https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20008611
   Google Scholar
• Zechmeister I, Schumacher I. The impact of health technology assessment reports on decision making in Austria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(1):77–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher I, Zechmeister I. Assessing the impact of health technology assessment on the Austrian healthcare system. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(1):84–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krammer H. Pharmakoökonomische Analysen – Chance oder 4. Hürde für innovative Arzneimittel. Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift. 2006;156(23–24):606–611.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Walter E, Zehetmayr S. Guidelines zur gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluation Konsenspapier. Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift. 2006;156(23–24):628–632.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Severin F, Schmidtke J, Mühlbacher A, et al. Eliciting preferences for priority setting in genetic testing: a pilot study comparing best-worst scaling and discrete-choice experiments. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(11):1202–1208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prosser LA. Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete-Choice Experiments: a Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value in Health. 2016;19(4):298–299.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar