Is it the Right Topic? An Overlooked Stage in the Institutionalization of Health Technology Assessment

References

• World Health Organization. A67/33 Health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage 67th World health assembly. Palais des Natons, Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2014 May 19–24.
   Google Scholar
• O’Rourke B, Oortwijn W, Schuller T. The new definition of health technology assessment: a milestone in international collaboration. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36(3):1–7. doi:10.1017/S0266462320000215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertram M, Dhaene G, Tan-Torres Edejer T, Organization WH. Institutionalizing health technology assessment mechanisms: a how to guide. 2021. Report No.: 9240020667.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Assembly. Health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage. WHA Resolution. 2014;67/23:3.
   Google Scholar
• Peacocke EF, Frønsdal K, Heupink L, Chola L, Lauvrak V, Bidonde J. Technical guidance for health technology assessment in low-and middle-income countries. Oslo (Norway): Norwegian Institute of Public Health; 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Qiu Y, Thokala P, Dixon S, Marchand R, Xiao Y. Topic selection process in health technology assessment agencies around the world: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2022;38(1). doi:10.1017/S0266462321001690.
   Google Scholar
• Lauvrak V, Bidonde J, Peacocke EF. Topic identification, selection and prioritisation for Health Technology Assessment (HTA). A report to support capacity building for HTA in low and middle income countries. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Division of Health Services GHD; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Leelahavarong P, Doungthipsirikul S, Kumluang S, Poonchai A, Kittiratchakool N, Chinnacom D, Suchonwanich N, Tantivess S. Health technology assessment in Thailand: institutionalization and contribution to healthcare decision making: review of literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35(6):467–73. doi:10.1017/S0266462319000321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mbau R, Vassall A, Gilson L, Barasa E. Factors influencing institutionalization of health technology assessment in Kenya. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):1–14. doi:10.1186/s12913-023-09673-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Institutionalization of health technology assessment: report on a WHO meeting, Bonn 30 June–1 July 2000. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson T, Wilkinson M, MacQuilkan K. Health technology assessment methods guide (v1.2): to inform the selection of medicines to the South African national essential medicines list. Pretoria (South Africa): South African Ministry of Health; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Nemzoff C, Shah HA, Heupink L, Regan L, Ghosh S, Pincombe M, Guzman J, Sweeney S, Ruiz F, Vassall A. et al. Adaptive health technology assessment: a scoping review of methods. Value Health. 2023;26(10):1549–1557. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2023.05.017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heupink LF, Peacocke EF, Sæterdal I, Chola L, Frønsdal K. Considerations for transferability of health technology assessments: a scoping review of tools, methods, and practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2022;38(1):e78. doi:10.1017/S026646232200321X.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Center for Global Development. Estimating the return on investment of Health Technology Assessment India (HTAIn). CGD; 2023 [accessed 2023 Jun 8]. https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/estimating-return-investment-health-technology-assessment-india-htain.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Health technology assessment and health benefit package survey 2020/2021. World Health Organization; 2022 [accessed 2022 Aug 17]. https://www.who.int/teams/health-systems-governance-and-financing/economic-analysis/health-technology-assessment-and-benefit-package-design/survey-homepage.
   Google Scholar
• Bidonde J, Lauvrak V, Ananthakrishnan A, Kingkaew P, Peacocke EF. Topic identification, selection, and prioritization for health technology assessment in selected countries: a mixed study design. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2024;22(1):12. doi:10.1186/s12962-024-00513-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EUnetHTA. An analysis of HTA and reimbursement procedures in EUnetHTA partner countries. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Cyr PR, Jain V, Chalkidou K, Ottersen T, Gopinathan U. Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: a mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content. Health Policy. 2021;125(8):1054–64. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.05.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauvrak V, Arentz-Hansen H, Di Bidino R, Erdos J, Garrett Z, Guilhaume C, Migliore A, Scintee SG, Usher C, Willemsen A. Recommendations for horizon scanning, topic identification. In: Selection and prioritisation for European Cooperation on health technology assessment, Norway: EUnetHTA; 2020. WP4 Deliverable 4.10. https://eunethta.eu/services/horizon-scanning/.
   Google Scholar
• Lema LV, Del Carmen Maceira Rozas M, Prieto Yerro I, Arriola Bolado P, Asúa Batarrita J, Espallargues Carreras M, Armesto SG, López TM, Santamera AS, Serrano-Aguilar Vallés P, the working group PriTec. PriTec tool: adaptation for the selection of technologies to be assessed prior entry into the health care benefits basket.: servizo galego de saude. La Unidad de Asesoramiento Científico-técnico; 2018 [accessed 2023 Oct 13]. https://avalia-t.sergas.gal/Paxinas/web.aspx?tipo=paxtxt&idLista=4&idContido=774&migtab=774&idTax=12028.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Agency For Drugs and Technologies in Health. Health technology assessment and optimal use: medical devices; diagnostic tests; medical, surgical, and dental procedures. Canadian Agency For Drugs and Technologies in Health. 2015;1:5.
   Google Scholar
• Hines P, Yu LH, Guy RH, Brand A, Papaluca-Amati M. Scanning the horizon: a systematic literature review of methodologies. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e026764. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026764.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Packer C, Simpson S, de Almeida RT. EuroScan international network member agencies: their structure, processes, and outputs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(1–2):78–85. doi:10.1017/S0266462315000100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Specchia ML, Favale M, Di Nardo F, Rotundo G, Favaretti C, Ricciardi W, de Waure C. How to choose health technologies to be assessed by HTA? A review of criteria for priority setting. Epidemiol Prev. 2015;39(4 Suppl 1):39–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. Health technology assessment survey 2020/21: main findings. WHO; 2022 [accessed 2023 May 1]. https://www.who.int/data/stories/health-technology-assessment-a-visual-summary.
   Google Scholar
• Nye Metoder. For suppliers - information in English: Nye metoder [National system of managed introduction of new methods in the specialist health care service in Norway]. 2023 [accessed 2023 Oct 11]. https://nyemetoder.no/om-systemet/for-suppliers-information-in-english.
   Google Scholar
• Németh B, Csanádi M, Inotai A, Ameyaw D, Kaló Z. Access to high-priced medicines in lower-income countries in the WHO European Region. In: Oslo medicines initiative technical report. Access to Medicines and Health Products (AMP) Team, Division of Country Health Policies and Systems (CPS) Team. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2022. p. 67. https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289058018.
   Google Scholar
• Campos PA, Reich MR. Political analysis for health policy implementation. Health Syst. 2019;5(3):224–35. doi:10.1080/23288604.2019.1625251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baltussen R, Jansen MP, Bijlmakers L, Tromp N, Yamin AE, Norheim OF. Progressive realisation of universal health coverage: what are the required processes and evidence? BMJ Glob Health. 2017;2(3):e000342. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frutos Pérez-Surio A, Gimeno-Gracia M, Alcácera López MA, Sagredo Samanes MA, Jario P, Salvador Gómez, Del Puerto MMDT. Systematic review for the development of a pharmaceutical and medical products prioritization framework. J Of Pharm Policy And Pract. 2019;12(1):1–7. doi:10.1186/s40545-019-0181-2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Rada G, Rosenbaum S. et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: introduction. BMJ. 2016;353:i2016. doi:10.1136/bmj.i2016.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for health benefit package design–part II: a practical guide. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021. doi:10.34172/ijhpm.2021.159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treweek S, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Bossuyt PM, Brandt L, Brożek J, Davoli M, Flottorp S, Harbour R, Hill S. et al. Developing and evaluating communication strategies to support informed decisions and practice based on evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):1–12. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• OECD. Trust and public policy: how better governance can help rebuild public trust. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Dale E, Peacocke EF, Movik E, Ottersen T, Voorhoeve A, Evans D, Evans DB, Norheim OF, Gopinathan U. Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review health policy and planning. Health Policy Plan. 2023;38(Suppl 1):i13–35. doi:10.1093/heapol/czad066.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• World Health Organization. Voice, agency, empowerment–handbook on social participation for universal health coverage. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Barnieh L, Manns B, Harris A, Blom M, Donaldson C, Klarenbach S, Husereau D, Lorenzetti D, Clement F. A synthesis of drug reimbursement decision-making processes in organisation for economic co-operation and development countries. Value Health. 2014;17(1):98–108. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tesar T, Obsitnik B, Kaló Z, Kristensen FB. How changes in reimbursement practices influence the financial sustainability of medicine policy: lessons learned from Slovakia. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:664. doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.00664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Value and Technologies in Healthcare (NIHO). Slovakia. How does the system of health technology reimbursement work in Slovakia? NIHO; 2023 [accessed 2023 May 1]. https://niho.sk/en/ako-funguje-system-na-slovensku/.
   Google Scholar
• European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Changes to entry conditions for medicines to the Slovak market. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2022 [accessed 2023 June 27]. https://eurohealthobservatory.who.int/monitors/health-systems-monitor/updates/hspm/slovakia-2016/changes-to-entry-conditions-for-medicines-to-the-slovak-market.
   Google Scholar
• IHSI. IHSI Mission: IHSI. 2023 [accessed 2023 Jun 29 2023]. https://ihsi-health.org/mission/.
   Google Scholar
• Leopold C, Lu CY, Wagner AK. Integrating public preferences into national reimbursement decisions: a descriptive comparison of approaches in Belgium and New Zealand. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):1–10. doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05152-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelson J. Patient engagement in health technology assessment: what constitutes ‘meaningful’and how we might get there. London, England: SAGE Publications Sage UK; 2018. pp. 69–71.
   Google Scholar
• Bidonde J, Vanstone M, Schwartz L, Abelson J. An institutional ethnographic analysis of public and patient engagement activities at a national health technology assessment agency. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2021;37(1):e37. doi:10.1017/S0266462321000088.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar