Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-klj7v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-03T01:46:03.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

When Is the ‘right’ Time to Initiate an Assessment of a Health Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Graham Mowatt
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
D. Jane Bower
Affiliation:
Kinnell Technologies
John A. Brebner
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
John A. Cairns
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Adrian M. Grant
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Lorna Mckee
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen

Abstract

There is currently no generally accepted formula for the optimal timing of health technology assessments (HTAs). This paper presents some of the relevant issues and then reviews the existing literature on timing of HTAs. It finds that the literature that specifically addresses these issues is limited. There is a consensus that HTAs should be initiated at an early stage of the development of a new health technology, and repeated during the life cycle of the technology. However, the questions of reliably identifying new technologies at an early stage in their development and of deciding on a detectable critical point for starting evaluation are not resolved. It is proposed that a system of categorization and prioritization of health technologies should be developed to allow decisions to be made as to when a strongly precautionary approach is required and how the limited resources available for HTA could be optimally deployed.

Type
General Essays
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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

REFERENCES

1.Adams, M. E., McCall, N. T., Gray, D. T., et al. Economic analysis in randomized control trials. Medical Care, 1992, 30, 231–43.Google Scholar
2.Advisory Council on Science and Technology. A report on medical research and health. London: HMSO, 1993.Google Scholar
3.Banta, H. D.Dutch committee assesses the future of health technology. Dimensions in Health Service, 1986, 63, 1720.Google Scholar
4.Banta, H. D., & Andreasen, P. B.The political dimension in health care technology assessment programs. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 115–23.Google Scholar
5.Banta, H. D., & Gelijns, A. C.The future and health care technology: implications of a system for early identification. World Health Statistics Quarterly, 1994, 47, 140–48.Google Scholar
6.Banta, H. D., & Luce, B. R.Health care technology and its assessment: An international perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
7.Banta, H. D., & Thacker, S. B.The case for reassessment of health care technology: Once is not enough. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 264, 235–40.Google Scholar
8.Battista, R. N., Feeny, D. H., & Hodge, M. J.Evaluation of the Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1995, 11, 102–16.Google Scholar
9.Begg, C., Cho, M., Eastwood, S., et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1996, 276, 637–39.Google Scholar
10.Black, N.Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. British Medical Journal, 1996, 312, 1215–18.Google Scholar
11.Border, P.Minimal access (‘keyhole’) surgery and its implications. London: Parliamentar Office of Science and Technology, 1995.Google Scholar
12.Bower, D. J.Innovation in health care: Developments in NHS trusts. Journal of Management in Medicine, 1994, 8, 5461.Google Scholar
13.Bunker, J. P., Hinkley, D., & McDermott, W. V.Surgical innovation and its evaluation. Science, 1978, 200, 937–41.Google Scholar
14.Chalmers, T. C.Randomization of the first patient. Medical Clinics of North America, 1975, 59, 1035–38.Google Scholar
15.Deber, R. B.Translating technology assessment into policy: Conceptual issues and tough choices. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1992, 8, 131–37.Google Scholar
16.Department of Health. Assessing the effects of health technologies: Principles, practice, proposals. London: Department of Health, 1992.Google Scholar
17.Department of Health. Proposed safety and efficacy register of new interventional procedures of the Medical Royal Colleges. London: Department of Health, 1995.Google Scholar
18.DiMasi, J. A., et al. Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Health Economics, 1991, 10, 107–42.Google Scholar
19.Dolan, A., & Zingg, W.Health care technology: How can we tell if we can afford it? A Canadian viewpoint. Journal of Long Term Effects of Medical Implants, 1993, 3, 277–82.Google Scholar
20.Donaldson, M. S., & Sox, H. C. (eds). Setting priorities for health technology assessment, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1992.Google Scholar
21.Drummond, M.Test drive. Health Service Journal, 1992, 102, 2627.Google Scholar
22.Durand-Zaleski, I. & Jolly, D.Technology assessment in health care: Decision makers and health care providers — What they need to know. Health Policy, 1990, 15, 3744.Google Scholar
23.Feeny, D., Guyatt, G., & Tugwell, P. (eds). Health care technology: Effectiveness, efficiency and public policy, Canada: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1986.Google Scholar
24.Fineberg, H. V.Technology assessment: Motivation, capability, and future directions. Medical Care, 1985, 23, 663–71.Google Scholar
25.Franklin, C.Basic concepts and fundamental issues in technology assessment. Intensive Care Medicine, 1993, 19, 117–21.Google Scholar
26.Gelijns, A., & Rosenberg, N.The dynamics of technological change in medicine. Health Affairs, 1994, 13, 28–6.Google Scholar
27.Gelijns, A. C. (ed). Modern methods of clinical investigation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.Google Scholar
28.Jonsson, B.Economic evaluation of health care technologies. Ada Endocrinologica, 1993, 128, 5054.Google Scholar
29.Lilford, R. J., & Jackson, J.Equipoise and the ethics of randomization. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1995, 88, 552–59.Google Scholar
30.Love, J. W.Drugs and operations: Some important differences. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1975, 232, 3738.Google Scholar
31.Luce, B. R., & Brown, R. E.The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third-party payers in the United States. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1995, 11, 7992.Google Scholar
32.McGregor, M.Can our health services be saved by technology evaluation? The Quebec experience. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 1994, 17, 334–42.Google Scholar
33. NHS Executive. Report of the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme 1996.Google Scholar
34.Russell, I.Can it work? Does it work? Research design for health technology assessment. York: University of York, 1996.Google Scholar
35.Sculpher, M., Drummond, M., & Buxton, M.Economic evaluation in health care research and development: Undertake it early and often. Uxbridge: Health Economics Research Group, Brunei University, 1995.Google Scholar
36.Sheldon, T. A., & Faulkner, A.Vetting new technologies: Those whose efficacy and safety have not been established will now be registered and evaluated. British Medical Journal, 1996, 313, 508.Google Scholar
37.Steering Committee on Future Health Scenarios. Anticipating and assessing health care technology. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987.Google Scholar
38.Stocking, B. Factors influencing the effectiveness of mechanisms to control medical technology. In Stocking, B. (ed.), Expensive health technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
39.Szczepura, A.Health care technology assessment (HTA) in Europe: Training for the future. Reported views of 288 organisations involved in European health care. Coventry: Comett-Assess, 1993.Google Scholar