Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Volume 11, 2011 - Issue 5
Submit an article Journal homepage
136
Views
8
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Special Report

Using health technology assessment to support evidence-based decision-making in Canada: an academic perspective

Feng Xie Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada;[email protected]
,
James M Bowen Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada
,
Simone C Sutherland Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada
,
Natasha Burke Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada
,
Gord Blackhouse Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada
,
Jean-Eric Tarride Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada
,
Daria O’Reilly Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada
&
Ron Goeree Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, 25 Main Street West, Suite 2000, Hamilton, ON, L8P 1H1, Canada
 show all
Pages 513-521 | Published online: 09 Jan 2014

References

  • National Bureau of Economic Research.Health care expenditures in the OECD. NBER Bulletin on Aging and Health14, 1–2 (2006).
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA268(17), 2420–2425 (1992).
  • Comparative effectiveness research in the USA. Lancet373(9665), 694 (2009).
  • Luce BR, Drummond M, Jonsson B et al. EBM, HTA, and CER: clearing the confusion. Milbank Q.88(2), 256–276 (2010).
  • Goeree R, Levin L. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: the PRUFE framework – an integral part of Ontario’s evidence-based HTPA process. Pharmacoeconomics24(11), 1143–1156 (2006).
  • Kristensen FB, Makela M, Neikter SA et al. European network for health technology assessment, EUnetHTA: planning, development, and implementation of a sustainable European network for health technology assessment. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care25(Suppl. 2), 107–116 (2009).
  • Hailey D, Menon D. A short history of INAHTA. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care15(1), 236–242 (1999).
  • Banta D, Jonsson E, Childs P. History of the international societies in health technology assessment: International Society for Technology Assessment in Health Care and Health Technology Assessment International. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care25(Suppl. 1), 19–23 (2009).
  • Battista RN, Cote B, Hodge MJ, Husereau D. Health technology assessment in Canada. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care25(Suppl. 1), 53–60 (2009).
  • Health Canada: Canada’s Health Care System. Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada (2005).
  • Menon D, Topfer LA. Health technology assessment in Canada. A decade in review. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care16(3), 896–902 (2000).
  • Menon D. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. CMAJ146(2), 113 (1992).
  • Blackhouse G, Xie F, Campbell K et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin for treatment of idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura: economic and health service impact analyses. Technology report number 112. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, Canada (2008).
  • Gaebel K, Blackhouse G, Campbell K et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: clinical and cost-effectiveness analyses. Technology report number 117. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, Canada (2009).
  • Gaebel K, Blackhouse G, Robertson D et al. Triple therapy for moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Technology report number 127. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, Canada (2009).
  • Assasi N, Blackhouse G, Xie F et al. Anti-TNF-α drugs for refractory inflammatory bowel disease: clinical- and cost–effectiveness analyses. Technology report number 120. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, Canada (2009).
  • Assasi N, Blackhouse G, Xie F. Ablation procedures for rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation: clinical and cost–effectiveness analyses. Technology report number 128. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, Canada (2010).
  • Levin L, Goeree R, Sikich N et al. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: the Ontario experience. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care23(3), 299–309 (2007).
  • Goeree R, Levin L, Chandra K et al. Health technology assessment and primary data collection for reducing uncertainty in decision-making. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.6(5), 332–342 (2009).
  • Levin L, Goeree R, Levine M et al. Coverage with evidence development: the Ontario experience. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care27(2), 159–168 (2011).
  • Bowen JM, Patterson LL, O’Reilly D et al. Conditionally funded field evaluations and practical trial design within a health technology assessment framework. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.6(5), 324–331 (2009).
  • Goeree R, Chandra K, Tarride JE et al. Conditionally funded field evaluations: PATHs coverage with evidence development program for Ontario. Value Health13(Suppl. 1), S8–S11 (2010).
  • Tu JV, Bowen J, Chiu M et al. Effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents in Ontario. N. Engl. J. Med.357(14), 1393–1402 (2007).
  • Tarride JE, Blackhouse G, De RG et al. Cost–effectiveness analysis of elective endovascular repair compared with open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms for patients at a high surgical risk: a 1-year patient-level analysis conducted in Ontario, Canada. J. Vasc. Surg.48(4), 779–787 (2008).
  • Blackhouse G, Hopkins R, Bowen JM et al. A cost–effectiveness model comparing endovascular repair to open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in Canada. Value Health12(2), 245–252 (2009).
  • Chow BJ, Freeman MR, Bowen JM et al. Ontario multidetector computed tomographic coronary angiography study: field evaluation of diagnostic accuracy. Arch. Intern. Med.171(11), 1021–1029 (2011).
  • Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Schedule of Benefit for Physician Services Under the Health Insurance Act. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, Ontario, Canada (2011).
  • McGregor M, Brophy JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: a way to increase impact. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care21(2), 263–267 (2005).
  • Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, Skidmore B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int.J. Technol. Assess. Health Care23(3), 310–315 (2007).
  • Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H. Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care26(3), 341–347 (2010).
  • Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat. Med.21(16), 2313–2324 (2002).
  • McCarron CE, Pullenayegum EM, Thabane L, Goeree R, Tarride JE. The importance of adjusting for potential confounders in Bayesian hierarchical models synthesising evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies: an application comparing treatments for abdominal aortic aneurysms. BMC Med. Res. Methodol.10, 64 (2010).
  • Sheldon TA. Problems of using modelling in the economic evaluation of healthcare. Health Econ.5(1), 1–11 (1996).
  • Kassirer JP, Angell M. The journal’s policy on cost–effectiveness analyses. N. Engl. J. Med.331(10), 669–670 (1994).
  • Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol. Assess.8(36), iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–158 (2004).
  • McCabe C. Guidance on good practice in cost–effectiveness modeling: is more needed? Med. Decis. Making27(4), 350–351 (2007).
  • Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices – Modeling Studies. Value Health6(1), 9–17 (2003).
  • Garrison LP. The ISPOR good practice modeling principles – a sensible approach: be transparent, be reasonable. Value Health6(1), 6–8 (2003).
  • Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of healthcare technologies. J. Health Econ.18(3), 341–364 (1999).
  • National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Social value judgements: principles for the development of NICE Guidance. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London, UK (2011).
  • Mann RD. Multi-criteria decision analysis – a new approach to an old problem. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug. Saf.16(Suppl. 1), S1 (2007).
  • Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Decision Determinants Guidance Document: The Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee decision making process for the development of evidence-based recommendations. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, Ontario, Canada (2010).

Websites

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.