Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

POST-INTRODUCTION OBSERVATION OF HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES AFTER COVERAGE: THE SPANISH PROPOSAL

  • Leonor Varela-Lema (a1), Alberto Ruano-Ravina (a2), Teresa Cerdá Mota (a3), Nora Ibargoyen-Roteta (a4), Inaki Imaz (a5), Inaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea (a4), Juan Antonio Blasco-Amaro (a6), Enrique Soto-Pedre (a7) and Laura Sampietro-Colom (a8)...

Abstract

Objectives: When a new health technology has been approved by a health system, it is difficult to guarantee that it is going to be efficiently adopted, adequately used, and that effectiveness, safety, and consumption of resources and costs are in line with what was expected in preliminary investigations. Many governmental institutions promote the idea that efficient mechanisms should be established aimed at developing and incorporating continuous evidence into health technologies management. The purpose of this article is to stimulate the discussion on systematic post-introduction observation of health technologies.

Methods: Literature review and input of HTA experts.

Results: The study addresses the key issues related to post-introduction observation and presents a summary of the guide commissioned by the Spanish Ministry of Health, Social Policy and Equality to the Galician HTA agency for the prioritization and implementation of systematic post-introduction observation in Spain. The manuscript describes the prioritization tool developed as part of this project and discusses the main aspects of protocol development, observation implementation, and assessment of results.

Conclusions: The observation of prioritized health technologies after they are introduced in standard clinical practice can provide useful information for health organizations. However, implementing the observation of health technologies can require specific policy frameworks, commitment from different stakeholders, and dedicated funding.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1.Al-Khatib, SM, Hellkamp, A, Curtis, J. Non-evidence-based ICD implantations in the United States. JAMA. 2011;305:4349.
2.Botting, B, Reilly, H, Harris, D. Use of office of population censuses and surveys records in medical research and clinical audit. Health Trends. 1995;27:47.
3.Carbonneil, C, Quentin, F, Lee-Robin, SH, European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). A common policy framework for evidence generation on promising health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Healthcare. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):5667.
4.Claxton, K, Sculpher, MJ. Using value information analysis to prioritise health research: Some lessons from recent UK experience (conference paper). Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;24:10551068.
5.Dhalla, IA, Garner, S, Chalkidou, K, Littlejohns, P. Perspectives on the National Institute for Health Clinical Excellence's recommendations to use health technologies only in research. Int J Health Technol Assess. 2009;25:272280.
6.Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 90/385/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to active implantable medical devices, Council Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices and Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Official Journal of the European Union, L 247/21 (September 21, 2007).
7.Eisenberg, MJ. Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA. 1999;282:18651869.
8.Fronsdal, KB, Facey, K, Klemp, M, et al.Health technology assessment to optimize health technology utilization: Using implementation initiatives and monitoring processes. Int J Health Technol Assess. 2010;26:309316.
9.Goodman, CS. HTA 101: Introduction to health technology assessment. Washington, DC: United States National Library of Medicine; 2004.
10.Hannon, EL. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies: Guidelines for assessing respective strengths and limitations. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1:211217.
11.Hutton, JL, Trueman, P, Henshall, C. Coverage with evidence development: An examination of conceptual and policy issues. Int J Health Technol Assess. 2007;23:425435.
12.Levin, L, Goeree, R, Levine, M, et al.Coverage with evidence development: The Ontario experience. Int J Health Technol Assess. 2011;27:159168.
13National coverage determinations with data collection as a condition of coverage: Coverage with evidence development. Baltimore: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid. US Department of Health & Human Services; 2011.
14.Norris, S, Atkins, D, Bruening, W. Selecting observational studies for comparing medical interventions. In: Agency for Healthcare Research and Qualityx, ed. Methods guide for comparative effectiveness rewiews. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010.
15.O'Malley, SP, Selby, WS, Jordan, E. A successful practical application for coverage with evidence development in Australia: Medical Services Advisory Committee interim funding and the PillCam Capsule Endoscopy Register. Int J Technol Assess Healthcare. 2009;25:290296.
16.Rao, SV, Shaw, RE, Brindis, RG, et al.On-versus off-label use of drug-eluting coronary stents in clinical practice (report from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry [NCDR]). Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:14781481.
17.Robert, G, Greenhalgh, T, Macfarlane, F, Peacock, R. Organisational factors influencing technology adoption and assimilation in the NHS: A systematic literature review. Report No: 08/1819/223. London: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR); 2009.
18.Schluessmann, E, Diel, P, Aghayev, E, et al.SWISSspine: A nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbur disc prostheses. Eur Spine J. 2009;18:851861.
19.Sorensen, HT, Lash, T, Rodman, KJ. Beyond randomized controlled trials: A critical comparison of trials with non randomized studies. Hepatology. 2006;44:10751082.
20.The Health and Social Care Information Centre. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS). London: National Health System; 2011.
21.Trueman, P, Grainger, DL, Downs, KE. Coverage with evidence development: Applications and issues. Int J Health Technol Assess. 2010;26:7985.
22.Turner, JA, Hollingworth, W, Comstock, B, Downs, KE, Deyo, RA. Comparative effectiveness research and policy: Experiences conducting coverage with evidence development study of a therapeutic device. Med Care. 2010;48 (Suppl 6):129136.
23.Varela Lema, L, Atienza Merino, G, López García, M, et al.Requirements ¡and expectations of health technology assessment in Galicia (Spain). A qualitative study from the perspective of decision makers and clinicians. Gac Sanit. 2011;25:454460.
24.Varela Lema, L, Ruano Raviña, A, Cerdá Mota, T, et al.Post-introduction observation of health technologies. Methodological guideline. Abridged version. Report No: avalia-t. No. 2007/02. Madrid: Ministry of Health & Consumer Affairs; 2009.
25.Whitted, GS. Medical technology diffusion and its effects on the modern hospital. Healthcare Manage Rev. 1981;6:4554.

Keywords

POST-INTRODUCTION OBSERVATION OF HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGIES AFTER COVERAGE: THE SPANISH PROPOSAL

  • Leonor Varela-Lema (a1), Alberto Ruano-Ravina (a2), Teresa Cerdá Mota (a3), Nora Ibargoyen-Roteta (a4), Inaki Imaz (a5), Inaki Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea (a4), Juan Antonio Blasco-Amaro (a6), Enrique Soto-Pedre (a7) and Laura Sampietro-Colom (a8)...

Metrics

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