Skip to main content Accessibility help

Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care

  • Kirsten F. L. Douma (a1), Kim Karsenberg (a1), Marjan J. M. Hummel (a2), Jolien M. Bueno-de-Mesquita (a1) and Wim H. van Harten (a3)...


Objectives: Technologies in health care are evolving quickly, with new findings in the area of biotechnological and genetic research being published regularly. A health technology assessment (HTA) is often used to answer the question of whether the new technology should be implemented into clinical practice. International evidence confirms that the results of HTA research sometimes have limited impact on practical implementation and on coverage decisions; the study design is commonly based on the paradigm of stability of both the technology and the environment, which is often not the case. Constructive technology assessment (CTA) was first described in the 1980s. In addition to the traditional HTA elements, this approach also takes into account the technology dynamics by emphasizing sociodynamic processes. With a CTA approach, comprehensive assessment can be combined with an intentional influence in a favorable direction to improve quality.

Methods: In this study, the methodological aspects mainly concerning the diagnostic use of CTA are explained. The methodology will be illustrated using the controlled introduction of a new technology, called microarray analysis, into the clinical practice of breast cancer treatment as a case study. Attention is paid to the operationalization of the phases of development and implementation and the research methods most appropriate for CTA.

Conclusions: In addition to HTA, CTA can be used as a complementary approach, especially in technologies that are introduced in an early stage of development in a controlled way.



Hide All
1.Battista, RN. Expanding the scientific basis of health technology assessment. A research for the next decade. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006; 22: 275282.
2.Berg, M, van, der Grinten T, Klazinga, N. Technology assessment, priority setting, and appropriate care in Dutch health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004; 20: 3543.
3.Draborg, E, Gyrd-Hansen, D, Poulsen, PB, Horder, M.International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005; 21: 8995.
4.Hummel, JM. Supporting medical technology development with the analytic hierarchy process. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen: Groningen. Dissertation. 2001.
5.Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm. Washington DC: National Academic Press; 2001.
6.Johri, M, Lehoux, P. The great escape? Prospects for regulating access to technology through health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003; 19: 179193.
7.Keesmaat, T.Scenarios of development of teleconsultation services in children's physiotherapy [Master's Thesis]. University of Twente, 2002.
8.Lehoux, P, Tailler, S, Denis, JL, Hivon, M. Redefining health Technology assessment in Canada: Diversification of products and contextualization of findings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004; 20: 325336.
9.Leys, M. Health technology assessment: The contribution of qualitative research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003; 19: 317329.
10.Molfenter, T, Gustafson, D, Kilo, C, Bhattacharya, A, Olsson, J. Prospective evaluation of a Bayesian Model to predict organisational change. Health Care Manage Rev. 2005; 30: 270279.
11.Oliver, A, Mossialos, E, Robinson, R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004; 20: 110.
12.Poulsen, PB. Health technology assessment and diffusion of health technology. Denmark: Odense University Press; 1999.
13.Rogers, EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
14.Schot, JW. Constructive technology assessment and technology dynamics: The case of clean technologies. Sci Technol Human Values. 1992; 17: 3656.
15.Schot, JW, Rip, A. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1996; 54: 251268.
16.Tunis, SR, Pearson, SD. Coverage options for promising technologies: Medicare's coverage with evidence development. Health Aff. 2006; 5: 12181230.
17.Van Harten, WH. The design and construction of a quality management system in rehabilitation. In Dutch. Ph.D. Thesis. Enschede; 1997.
18.Van, Harten WH, Casparie, AF, Fisscher, OA. Methodological considerations on the assessment of quality management systems. Health Policy. 2000; 54: 187200.
19.Van, Rossum W. Decision-making and medical technology assessment: Three Dutch cases. Knowledge Policy. 1991; 4: 102.
20.Van, de Vijver MJ, He, YD, van't, Veer LJ et al. , A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347: 19992009.
21.van't, Veer LJ, Dai, H, van, de Vijver MJ et al. , Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002; 415: 530536.
22.Willems, D, Schade, E. Social and normative aspects of medical technology (in Dutch). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1995; 34: 17521755.


Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care

  • Kirsten F. L. Douma (a1), Kim Karsenberg (a1), Marjan J. M. Hummel (a2), Jolien M. Bueno-de-Mesquita (a1) and Wim H. van Harten (a3)...


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