Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T16:47:16.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary on the article “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2008

H. David Banta
H. David Banta*
Affiliation:
Professor Emeritus, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands, 67 rue de la Roquette, 75011 Paris, France (HD.Banta@orange.fr)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The article “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions” presents fifteen principles for health technology assessment. Many of these cannot be disputed, and application of the principles as stated would undoubtedly improve HTA as it is developing in the world at large. My question is, are these the most important principles? The document does not really try to answer this question.

Type
Article Commentary
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 362 - 365
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Cochrane, A. Effectiveness and efficiency. London: The Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1992.Google Scholar
2. Cochrane Collaboration. http://www.cochrane.org.Google Scholar
3. Drummond, M, Stoddart, G, Torrance, G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.Google Scholar
4. Gold, MR, Siegel, JE, Russel, LB, Weinstein, M. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Goldsmith, L, Henderson, B, Hurley, J. 2004. Economic evaluation across the four faces of prevention: A Canadian perspective. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University and the Center for Health Economics and Policy Analysis.Google Scholar
6. Henshall, C, Oortwijn, W, Stevens, A, et al. Priority setting for health technology assessment. A paper by the Prioriy Setting Subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:144–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Office of Technology Assessment. The implications of cost-effectiveness analysis of medical technology. Washington, DC: US Government Office; 1980.Google Scholar
8. Liberati, A, Sheldon, T, Banta, HD, et al. EUR-ASSESS project subgroup report on methodology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:186–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. 1995. Review of the research on the effectiveness of health services interventions to reduce variations in health. CRD report 3. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.Google Scholar
10. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. 2000. Evidence from systematic reviews of research relevant to implementing the “wide public health” agenda. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.Google Scholar
11. Sonnad, S, Greenberg, D, Rosen, A, Neumann, P. 2005. Diffusion of published cost-utility analyses in the field of health policy and practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 21:399–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996. (See internet Web site for more up-to-date citations).Google Scholar