Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Laura Sampietro-Colom (a1), Krzysztof Lach (a2), Iris Pasternack (a3), Jean-Blaise Wasserfallen (a4), Americo Cicchetti (a5), Marco Marchetti (a6), Kristian Kidholm (a7), Helene Arentz-Hansen (a8), Magdalene Rosenmöller (a9), Claudia Wild (a10), Rabia Kahveci (a11) and Margus Ulst (a12)...


Objectives: Health technology assessment (HTA) carried out for policy decision making has well-established principles unlike hospital-based HTA (HB-HTA), which differs from the former in the context characteristics and ways of operation. This study proposes principles for good practices in HB-HTA units.

Methods: A framework for good practice criteria was built inspired by the EFQM excellence business model and information from six literature reviews, 107 face-to-face interviews, forty case studies, large-scale survey, focus group, Delphi survey, as well as local and international validation. In total, 385 people from twenty countries have participated in defining the principles for good practices in HB-HTA units.

Results: Fifteen guiding principles for good practices in HB-HTA units are grouped in four dimensions. Dimension 1 deals with principles of the assessment process aimed at providing contextualized information for hospital decision makers. Dimension 2 describes leadership, strategy and partnerships of HB-HTA units which govern and facilitate the assessment process. Dimension 3 focuses on adequate resources that ensure the operation of HB-HTA units. Dimension 4 deals with measuring the short- and long-term impact of the overall performance of HB-HTA units. Finally, nine core guiding principles were selected as essential requirements for HB-HTA units based on the expertise of the HB-HTA units participating in the project.

Conclusions: Guiding principles for good practices set up a benchmark for HB-HTA because they represent the ideal performance of HB-HTA units; nevertheless, when performing HTA at hospital level, context also matters; therefore, they should be adapted to ensure their applicability in the local context.



Hide All
1. McGregor, M. What decision-makers want and what they have been getting. Value Health. 2006;9:181185.
2. Cicchetti, A, Marchetti, M, Bidino, R, Corio, M. Hospital based health technology assessment world-wide survey. Hospital based health technology assessment Sub-Interest Group; 2008;41 (accessed January 18, 2016).
3. Sampietro-Colom, L, Morilla-Bachs, I, Gutierrez-Moreno, S, Gallo, P. Development and test of a decision support tool for hospital health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:460465.
4. Kidholm, K, Ølholm, A, Birk-Olsen, M, et al. An interview study in nine European countries. Health Policy (New York) [Internet]. Elsevier Ireland Ltd; 2015; (accessed January 18, 2016).
5. Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jönsson, B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244258; discussion 362–368.
6. Vallejo, P, Saura, RM, Sunol, R, et al. A proposed adaptation of the EFQM fundamental concepts of excellence to health care based on the PATH framework. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006;18:327335.
7. Rosenmöller, M, Sampietro-Colom, L, Farré, M, et al. D 4.1 Review of best practices on undertaking and using HTA at Hospital level and description of European policies affecting Hospital based HTA. 2013. Confidential deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018).
8. AdHopHTA (Adopting hospital-based Health Technology Assessment in EU) research project, funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (Grant Agreement 305018) [Internet]. 2012–2015 [cited 2015 Jun 29]. (accessed June 29, 2015).
9. AdHopHTA partners. The AdHopHTA toolkit: A toolkit for hospital-based Health Technology Assessment (HB-HTA); Public deliverable, The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018); 2015 [cited 2015 Sep 29]. (accessed June 29, 2015).
10. Lafortune, L, Farand, L, Mondou, I, Sicotte, C, Battista, R. Assessing the performance of health technology assessment organizations: A framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:7686.
11. Goodman, C. Toward international good practices in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:169170.
12. Gagnon, M-P, Abdeljelil, AB, Desmartis, M, et al. Opportunities to promote efficiency in hospital decision-making through the use of health technology assessment. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) – Research Reports, CHSRF series of reports on cost drivers and health system efficiency. Ottawa, CHSRF; 2011:128.
13. Lavis, JN, Oxman, AD, Moynihan, R, Paulsen, EJ. Evidence-informed health policy 1 - synthesis of findings from a multi-method study of organizations that support the use of research evidence. Implement Sci. 2008;3:53.
14. Battista, RN. Expanding the scientific basis of health technology assessment: A research agenda for the next decade. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:275280; discussion 280–282.
15. McGregor, M, Brophy, JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21;263267.
16. EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model ® version 2.1 [updated April 22, 2015]. (accessed July 14, 2015).
17. Lampe, K, Mäkelä, M. (editors). EUnetHTA core model for medical and surgical interventions. 1.0R, 2008. (accessed November 3, 2014).
18. Lampe, K, Pasternack, I, (editors). EUnetHTA. HTA core model for diagnostic technologies. 1.0R, 2008. (accessed September 23, 2014).
19. Hailey, D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment: A checklist for HTA reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19;17.
20. Ølholm, AM, Kidholm, K, Birk-Olsen, M, et al. D2.2: Quality assessment of hospital-based HTA products. 2014, Confidential deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018).
21. Stafinski, T, Topfer, L-A, Zakariasen, K, Menon, D. The role of surgeons in identifying emerging technologies for health technology assessment. Can J Surg. 2010;53:8692.
22. Gallego, G, van Gool, K, Kelleher, D. Resource allocation and health technology assessment in Australia: Views from the local level. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:134140.
23. Haselkorn, A, Rosenstein, AH, Rao, AK, Van Zuiden, M, Coye, MJ. New technology planning and approval: Critical factors for success 13. Am J Med Qual. 2007;22:164169.
24. Moharra, M, Espallargues, M, Kubesch, N, et al. Systems to support health technology assessment (HTA) in member states of the European Union with limited institutionalization of HTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):7583.
25. Poulin, P, Austen, L, Kortbeek, JB, Lafrenière, R. New technologies and surgical innovation: Five years of a local health technology assessment program in a surgical department. Surg Innov. 2012;19:187–99.
26. Juzwishin, D, Olmstead, D, Menon, D. Hospital-based technology assessment programmes: Two Canadian examples. World Hosp Health Serv. 1996;32:29.
27. Golan, O, Hansen, P, Kaplan, G, Tal, O. Health technology prioritization: Which criteria for prioritizing new technologies and what are their relative weights? Health Policy (New York). 2011;102:126135.
28. Rubinstein, A, Pichon-Riviere, A, Augustovski, F. Development and implementation of health technology assessment in Argentina: Two steps forward and one step back. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):260269.
29. Elshaug, AG, et al. Challenges in Australian policy processes for disinvestment from existing, ineffective health care practices. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4;23.
30. Arentz-Hansen, H, Bjørnebek Frønsdal, K, Fure, B, et al. D3.1: Bridging Hospital HTA and National/Regional HTA Activities. 2013, Confidential Deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018).
31. Pasternak, I, Halmesmäki, E, Roine, R, et al. D3.2: Portfolio of patterns of collaboration between hospital-based HTA and national/regional HTA agencies. 2014, Confidential Deliverable; The AdHopHTA Project (FP7/2007-13 grant agreement nr 305018).
32. Mäkelä, M, Roine, RP. Health technology assessment in Finland. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 (Suppl 1):102107.
33. Granados, A, Jonsson, E, Banta, HD, et al. EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup Report on Dissemination and Impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:220286.
34. Bennie, M, Dear, J, Hems, S, et al. An investigation into the effect of advice from the Scottish Medicines Consortium on the use of medicines in Scotland's Health Service. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;71:283288.
35. Neumann, PJ, Drummond, MF, Jönsson, B, et al. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:7178.
36. [No authors listed]. Health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1);10.
37. Attieh, R, Gagnon, M-P. Implementation of local/hospital-based health technology assessment initiatives in low- and middle-income countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:445451.
38. Andradas, E, Blasco, J-A, Valentín, B, López-Pedraza, M-J, Gracia, F-J. Defining products for a new health technology assessment agency in Madrid, Spain: A survey of decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:6069.
39. Luce, BR, Brown, RE. The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third-party payers in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995;11:7992.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Sampietro-Colom supplementary material
List of acknowledgments

 Word (30 KB)
30 KB
Supplementary materials

Sampietro-Colom supplementary material
Table S2

 Word (20 KB)
20 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