Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5f95dd588d-bt9v4 Total loading time: 0.241 Render date: 2021-10-28T20:39:16.167Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Economic evaluations conducted by Canadian health technology assessment agencies: Where do we stand?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Jean-Eric Tarride
Affiliation:
McMaster University/St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
Catherine Elizabeth McCarron
Affiliation:
McMaster University/St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
Morgan Lim
Affiliation:
McMaster University/St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
James M. Bowen
Affiliation:
McMaster University/St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
Gord Blackhouse
Affiliation:
McMaster University/St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
Robert Hopkins
Affiliation:
McMaster University/St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
Daria O'Reilly
Affiliation:
McMaster University/St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
Feng Xie
Affiliation:
McMaster University/St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
Ron Goeree
Affiliation:
McMaster University/St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the production of Health Technology Assessments (HTAs) with economic evaluations (EEs) conducted by Canadian HTA agencies.

Methods: This research used a three-step approach: (i) the Web sites of five Canadian organizations promoting HTA were searched to identify HTA reports with EEs; (ii) HTA agencies were surveyed to verify that our information was complete with respect to HTA activities and to describe the factors that influence the HTA process in Canada (i.e., selection of HTA topics, execution, dissemination of results and future trends); (iii) HTAs with EEs were appraised in terms of study design, retrieval of clinical and economic evidence, resource utilization and costing, effectiveness measures, treatment of uncertainty as well as presence of a budget impact analysis (BIA), and policy recommendations.

Results: Two hundred forty-nine HTA reports were identified of which 19 percent included EEs (n = 48). Decision analytic techniques were used in approximately 75 percent of the forty-eight EEs and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were commonly used by all agencies to deal with parameter uncertainty. BIAs or policy recommendations were given in 50 percent of the evaluations. Differences between agencies were observed in terms of selection of topics, focus of assessment and production of HTA (e.g., in-house activities). Major barriers to the conduct of HTAs with EEs were capacity, a lack of interest by decision makers and a lack of robust clinical information.

Conclusions: The results of this research point to the need for increased HTA training, collaboration, evidence synthesis, and use of pragmatic “real world” evaluations.

Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Borowski, HZ, Brehaut, J, Hailey, D. Linking evidence from health technology assessments to policy and decision making: The Alberta model. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:155161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006. http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/186_EconomicGuidelines_e.pdf.Google Scholar
3. Drummond, MF, Jefferson, TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ. 1996;313:275283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Drummond, M, Sculpher, M, Torrance, G, O'Brien, B, Stoddart, G. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
5. Goeree, R, Levin, L. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: The PRUFE framework – an integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:11431156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Health Canada. Health Technology Assessment Task Group. Health technology strategy 1.0 final report. June 2004. http://www.cadth.ca/media/corporate/planning_documents/health_tech_strategy_1.0_nov2004_e.pdf.Google Scholar
7. Hivon, M, Lehoux, P, Denis, JL, Tailliez, S. Use of health technology assessment in decision-making: Coresponsibility of users and producers? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:268275.Google ScholarPubMed
8. Lehoux, P, Tailliez, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Levin, L, Goeree, R, Sikich, N et al. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: The Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:299309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Menon, D, Topfer, LA. Health technology assessment in Canada. A decade in review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:896902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. van Velden, ME, Severens, JL, Novak, A. Economic evaluations of healthcare programmes and decision-making: The influence of economic evaluations on different healthcare decision-making levels. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:10751082.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Economic evaluations conducted by Canadian health technology assessment agencies: Where do we stand?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Economic evaluations conducted by Canadian health technology assessment agencies: Where do we stand?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Economic evaluations conducted by Canadian health technology assessment agencies: Where do we stand?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *