Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Kristina Kõrge (a1), Nadine Berndt (a2), Juergen Hohmann (a3), Florence Romano (a4) and Mickael Hiligsmann (a5)...


Objectives: The health technology assessment (HTA) Core Model® is a tool for defining and standardizing the elements of HTA analyses within several domains for producing structured reports. This study explored the parallels between the Core Model and a national HTA report. Experiences from various European HTA agencies were also investigated to determine the Core Model's adaptability to national reports.

Methods: A comparison between a national report on Genetic Counseling, produced by the Cellule d'expertise médicale Luxembourg, and the Core Model was performed to identify parallels in terms of relevant and comparable assessment elements (AEs). Semi-structured interviews with five representatives from European HTA agencies were performed to assess their user experiences with the Core Model.

Results: The comparative study revealed that 50 percent of the total number (n = 144) of AEs in the Core Model were relevant for the national report. Of these 144 AEs from the Core Model, 34 (24 percent) were covered in the national report. Some AEs were covered only partly. The interviewees emphasized flexibility in using the Core Model and stated that the most important aspects to be evaluated include characteristics of the disease and technology, clinical effectiveness, economic aspects, and safety.

Conclusions: In the present study, the national report covered an acceptable number of AEs of the Core Model. These results need to be interpreted with caution because only one comparison was performed. The Core Model can be used in a flexible manner, applying only those elements that are relevant from the perspective of the technology assessment and specific country context.



Hide All
1. Lampe, K, Mäkelä, M, Velasco Garrido, M, Anttila, H, Autti-Rämö, I, Hicks, NJ, et al. The HTA Core Model: A novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):920.
2. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model ® version 3.0 (Pdf). 2016. (accessed March 3, 2016).
3. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model User Guide Version 1.1. 2016. (accessed March 3, 2016).
4. Chiarolla, E, Ambrosio, G, Amicosante, AMV, Caimmi, P, Carluccio, E, Corio, M, et al. Implantable cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillator (CRT-D) in patients with heart failure – Rapid HTA Report. Rome, Italy: Agenzia nazionale per i servizi sanitari regionali (Agenas); 2014.
5. Desomer, A, Gerkens, S, Vinck, I, Leonard, C, Neyt, M, Paulus, D, et al. Cardiovascular pre-participation screening in young athletes. Brussels, Belgium: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Brussels, Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2015. KCE Reports 241. D/2015/10.273/30.
6. Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger. CRC Screening mit M2-PK Stuhltest Im Vergleich zu gFOBT und FIT. Wien, Austria: Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger; 2015.
7. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, National Uptake. List of EUnetHTA Output used for national adaptation. 2016. (accessed April 7, 2016).
8. EUnetHTA Joint Action 1, Work Package 8. EUnetHTA Handbook on Health Technology Assessment Capacity Building. Barcelona (Spain): Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research. Catalan Health Service. Department of Health Autonomous Government of Catalonia; 2008. (accessed April 8, 2016).
9. Pasternack, I, de Groot, I, Kleijnen, S, Polman, P. Comparing the HTA Core Model with a national Health Technology Assessment report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:530535.
10. Inspection générale de la sécurité sociale. Article 65bis (1) du code de la sécurité sociale: lois et règlements. Luxembourg: Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Ministère de la sécurité sociale; 2011.
11. Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. Règlement grand-ducal du 30 juillet 2011 relatif au fonctionnement de la Commission de nomenclature des actes et services pris en charge par l'assurance maladie. Mémorial A n°183 du 23 août 2011. Luxembourg: Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg; 2011.
12. Stephens, JM, Handke, B, Doshi, JA. International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): Does practice meet the principles proposed for good research. Comp Effect Res. 2012;2:2944.
13. Schwarzer, R, Siebert, U. Methods, procedures, and contextual characteristics of health technology assessment and health policy decision making: Comparison of health technology assessment agencies in Germany, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:305314.
14. Cellule d'expertise médicale. Analysis and proposals concerning the demand of the Controle medical de la sécurité sociale to introduce new acts for genetic medicine. Luxembourg: Cellule d'expertise médicale; 2015 (unpublished).
15. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model ® version 2.1 (Pdf). 2015. (accessed July 2, 2015).
16. Murphy, E, Dingwall, R, Greatbatch, D, Parker, S, Watson, P. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: A review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2iii-ix: 1274.
17. Harrell, MC, Bradley, MA. Data collection methods: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Santa Monica, CA: National defense research institute (RAND); 2009.
18. Golafshani, N. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report. 2003;8:597607.
19. Fusch, PI, Ness, LR. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report. 2015;20:14081416.
20. Busse, R, Orvain, J, Velasco, M, Gürtner, F, Jørgensen, T, Jovell, A, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361422.
21. Lavis, JN, Wilson, MG, Grimshaw, JM, Haynes, RB, Ouimet, M, Raina, P, et al. Supporting the use of health technology assessments in policy making about health systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:405414.
22. Velasco Garrido, M, Gerhardus, A, Røttingen, JA, Busse, R. Developing health technology assessment to address health care system needs. Health Policy. 2010;94:196202.
23. Hailey, D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment: A checklist for HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:17.
24. Wagener, R. Health technology assessment in Luxembourg. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:475484.
25. Lo Scalzo, A, Vicari, N, Corio, M, Perrini, MR, Jefferson, T, Gillespie, F, et al. Collaborative models for the joint production of core health technology assessments: Negative and positive aspects for the joint work of different European agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:536-453.
26. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model User Guide Version 1.1 (Pdf). 2015. (accessed June 14, 2017).
27. Kristensen, FB, Lampe, K, Wild, C, Cerbo, M, Goettsch, W, Becla, L. The HTA Core Model®-10 years of developing an international framework to share multidimensional value assessment. Value Health. 2017;20:244250.
28. Kleijnen, S, Toenders, W, de Groot, F, Huic, M, George, E, Wieseler, B, et al. European collaboration on relative effectiveness assessments: What is needed to be successful? Health Policy. 2015;119:569576.
29. Ritrovato, M, Faggiano, FC, Tedesco, G, Derrico, P. Decision-oriented health technology assessment: One step forward in supporting the decision-making process in hospitals. Value Health. 2015;18:505511.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Kõrge et al supplementary material
Kõrge et al supplementary material 1

 Word (31 KB)
31 KB


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