Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T18:42:10.250Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONSIDER CONTEXT AND STAKEHOLDERS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2012

Laura Sampietro-Colom
Laura Sampietro-Colom*
Affiliation:
Deputy Director of Innovation, Head of HTA Unit, Hospital Clinic Barcelona, Spain, HTAi Immediate Past President email: lsampietro@clinic.ub.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Health technology assessment (HTA) is now 35 years old (1). During this time, the science and use of HTA has evolved enormously, adapting to changing healthcare and policy environments. Today, the HTA community has strong methods and procedures to produce HTA (5–7;10), and its results are increasingly used worldwide for decision making. It seems therefore that the time has arrived to set up best practices and to benchmark HTA processes and organizations. The work initiated by Drummond et al. is highly valued, because it opens a new area of needed work following the HTA community's previous emphasis on methodological and process development.

Type
COMMENTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 166 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.Banta, D, Jonsson, E. History of HTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Banta, D. Commentary on the article “Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessment for resource allocation decisions.” Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:362–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Dietary Treatment of Diabetes. A systematic review. English summary of the SBU Report no 201, August 2010. ISBN: 978-91-85413-37-9. http://www.sbu.se/upload/Publikationer/Content1/1/mat_diabetes_eng_smf_110517.pdf.Google Scholar
4.Hivon, M, Lehoux, P, Denis, JL, Tailliez, S. Use of health technology assessment in decision making: co responsibility of users and producers? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:268–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Kristensen, FB, Sigmund, H, eds. Health technology assessment handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Center for Health Technology Assessment, National Board of Health. 2007. www.dacehta.dk.Google Scholar
6.Lampe, K, Mäkelä, M, eds. EUnetHTA core model for medical and surgical interventions 1.0R. December 2008. www.eunethta.net.Google Scholar
7.Lampe, K, Pasternack, I, eds. EUnetHTA. HTA core model for diagnostic technologies 1.0R. December 2008. www.eunethta.net.Google Scholar
8.Liberati, A, Sheldon, TA, Banta, D. EUR-ASSESS project. Subgroup report on methodology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:186–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.McGregor, M. What decision makers want and what they have been getting. Value Health. 2006;9:181–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Simpson, S, Hiller, J, Gutierrez-Ibarluzea, I, et al. EuroScan International. A tool kit for the identification and assessment of new and emerging health technologies. 2009 Euroscan. Birmingham. http://www.euroscan.org.uk/methods/.Google Scholar
11.Systematic Reviews. CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; January 2009. http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/SysRev/!SSL!/WebHelp/SysRev3.htm.Google Scholar