Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Julia Mayer (a1) and Anna Nachtnebel (a2)


Objectives: Many of the currently used health technologies have never been systematically assessed or are misused, overused or superseded. Therefore, they may be ineffective. Active identification of ineffectiveness in health care is gaining importance to facilitate best care for patients and optimal use of limited resources. The present research analyzed processes and experiences of programs for identifying ineffective health technologies. The goal of this study was to elucidate factors that facilitate implementation.

Methods: Based on an overview article, a systematic literature search and unsystematic hand-search were conducted. Further information was gained from international experts.

Results: Seven programs were identified that include identification, prioritization and assessment of ineffective health technologies and dissemination of recommendations. The programs are quite similar regarding their goals, target groups and criteria for identification and prioritization. Outputs, mainly HTA reports or lists, are mostly disseminated by means of the internet. Top–down and bottom–up programs both have benefits in terms of implementation of recommendations, either as binding guidelines and decisions or as nonbinding information for physicians and other stakeholders. Crucial facilitators of implementation are political will, transparent processes and broad stakeholder involvement focusing on physicians.

Conclusions: All programs can improve the quality of health care and enable cost reduction in supportive surrounding conditions. Physicians and patients must be continuously involved in the process of evaluating health technologies. Additionally, decision makers must support programs and translate recommendations into concrete actions.



Hide All
1. Haas, M, Hall, J, Viney, R, Gallego, G. Breaking up is hard to do: Why disinvestment in medical technology is harder than investment. Aust Health Rev. 2012;36:148152.
2. Joshi, NP, Stahnish, FW, Noseworth, TW. Reassessment of health technologies: Obsolescence and waste. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); 2009.
3. Center for Clinical Effectiveness. Health technology disinvestment: Tests, drugs and clinical practice. Report on a national disinvestment workshop. Melbourne, Australia: Center for Clinical Effectiveness; 2009.
4. Mc Kean, G, Noseworthy, T, Elshaug, A, Clement, F. Health technology reassessment: The art of the possible. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:418423.
5. CHERE. Reducing the use of ineffective health care interventions. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, 2010. Working Paper 2010/5.
6. Leggett, L, Noseworthy, TW, Zarrabi, M, et al. Health technology reassessment of non-drug technologies: Current practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:220227.
7. Gerdvilaite, J, Nachtnebel, A. Disinvestment. Overview of disinvestment experiences and challenges in selected countries. Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut for Health Technology Assessment (LBI HTA); 2011.
8. Garner, S, Littlejohns, P. Disinvestment from low value clinical interventions: NICEly done? BMJ. 2011;343:d4519.
9. Elshaug, AG, Hiller, JE, Tunis, SR, Moss, JR. Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4:23.
10. Henshall, C, Schuller, T, Mardhani-Bayne, L. Using health technology assessment to support optimal use of technologies in current practice: The challenge of “disinvestment”. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:203210.
11. Haines, T, O’Brien, L, McDermott, F, et al. A novel research design can aid disinvestment from existing health technologies with uncertain effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and/or safety. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:144–51.
12. Elshaug, AG, McWilliams, JM, Landon, BE. The value of low-value lists. JAMA. 2013;309:775776.
13. Howard, DH, Shen, Y-C. Comparative effectiveness research, technological abandonment, and health care spending. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res. 2012;23:103121.
14. Scott, IA, Elshaug, AG. Foregoing low-value care: How much evidence is needed to change beliefs? Intern Med J. 2013;43:107109.
15. Health Technology Assessment International [Internet]. HTAi subgroup on patient and citizen involvement. 2015. (accessed April 10, 2015).
16. Victorian Government Department of Human Services. Future directions for health technology uptake, diffussion and disinvestment in Victorian public health services. Workshop discussion paper. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Government Department of Human Services; 2007.
17. Ibargoyen-Roteta, N, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I, Asua, J. Report on the development of the GuNFT guideline. Guideline for not funding existing health technologies in health care systems. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment Health Department Basque Government (OSTEBA); 2009.
18. Atienza Merino, G, Varela Lema, L. Needs and demands of policy-makers. In: Velasco, Garrido M, Børlum, Kristensen F, Palmhøj, Nielsen C, Busse, R, eds. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe Current status, challenges and potential. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
19. Mitton, C. Questionnaire: Identifying models and strategies for optimal resource allocation and disinvestment in health care systems- Focus on PBMA. 2013.
20. Mitton, C, Dionne, F, Damji, R, Campbell, D, Bryan, S. Difficult decisions in times of constraint: Criteria based resource allocation in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:169.
21. Chamberlain, CA, Martin, RM, Busby, J, et al. Trends in procedures for infertility and caesarean sections: Was NICE disinvestment guidance implemented? NICE recommendation reminders. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:112.
22. Lavis, JN, Røttingen, J-A, Bosch-Capblanch, X, et al. Guidance for evidence-informed policies about health systems: Linking guidance development to policy development. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001186.



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed