Health Canada is committed to the modernization of the use of real-world data (RWD) and evidence (RWE) to support regulatory decisions. As such, telephone interviews with stakeholders, including government decision makers, health technology assessment (HTA) producers, industry, and patients, to understand their experiences with and perspectives on how to enhance RWE use for medical devices were performed.

Thirty-four semi-structured telephone interviews with forty key informants were conducted. Transcripts were reviewed independently by one individual to identify, define, and categorize key concepts and were verified by a second reviewer.

There are expectations for Health Canada to provide a framework and guidance on RWE use, identify relevant outcomes for data collection and criteria for data quality, conduct post-market surveillance more systematically, and partner with HTA organizations to develop methods for RWE generation. Stakeholders interviewed support the RWE use for regulatory decisions and HTA recommendations. Moreover, robust scientific methods for RWE generation will be critical to ensure that relevant questions are asked and rigorous statistical analyses are done to answer them. Patients are likely to consent to share their anonymized or de-identified medical information for nonprofit purposes.

Key concepts from the interviews centered on the current and future RWE use for medical devices, considerations for the organizational, medical, scientific, and legal aspects and privacy issues of RWD collection or RWE generation, and options to implement the use of RWD and RWE. Our study findings will help inform the development of an RWE framework for regulatory decisions and HTA recommendations.

As healthcare decision makers continue to face challenges in health services delivery to their patients, disinvestment programs are being established for a sustainable healthcare system. This study aimed to collect data and information by means of a survey of disinvestment candidates and ongoing disinvestment projects in the health technology assessment (HTA) community.

An online survey was conducted to collect information on disinvestment candidates and activities from members of the Health Technology Assessment International Disinvestment & Early Awareness Interest Group, the EuroScan International Network and International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment.

Among the 362 invitees, twenty-four unique responses were received, and almost 70 percent were involved in disinvestment initiatives. The disinvestment candidates identified represented a range of health technologies. Evidence or signaling of clinical ineffectiveness or inappropriate use typically led to the nomination of disinvestment candidates. Health technology assessments and reassessments were usually conducted to evaluate the technology in question, and decisions usually led to the limited use of the technology. Barriers to disinvestment decisions included the strength of interest and advocacy groups, insufficient data for assessments, a systematic decision process and political challenges, while obstacles to their implementation were clinicians’ reluctance and insufficient funding and incentives.

The survey results suggested that disinvestment activities are occurring in the HTA community, especially in the public sector. Future research can further investigate the processes and methods used to reach and implement disinvestment decisions from our survey respondents and explore to form closer ties between the HTA and clinical communities.

Candidate health technologies identified for disinvestment will require prioritization depending on the system's capacity for dealing with the assessments or for further considerations. Compilations of low value lists, such as the National Institutes for Health and Clinical Excellence's, “Do not do recommendations”, can serve as databases for prioritization topics. Prioritization processes can also be triggered by experience or event-based regional requests and decisions; new evidence on safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, variations in clinical practice, patient or consumer voicing, discrepancies between practice and guidelines; and or time-based mechanisms, such as approval of new health technologies and reassessment five years after introduction.

A search of the published and grey literature was conducted to identify the current methods or tools used to prioritize potential health technologies and services for disinvestment. The description of the methods and tools identified, the prioritization criteria, and the stakeholders involved in the process were reviewed and summarized.

The methods and tools used for prioritization that were identified in the literature include the PriTec Prioritization tool, nominal group technique, Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis, consensus building, and online surveys. Further, common criteria for prioritization centered on the disease burden, possible risks and benefits, costs and cost-effectiveness, utilization, and time-based criteria. Prioritization can be conducted by health care professionals, decision makers, patients or patient groups and representative community members.

The prioritization process for disinvestment candidates should be transparent and guided largely by evidence. It is highly recommended that the list of predefined criteria be developed with input from all relevant stakeholders to meet the objectives of the specific health care setting. The commonly cited basic requirements include clinical parameters, economic measures, and social, ethical or legal considerations.

Current health technology assessment (HTA) methods guidelines for medical devices may benefit from contributions by biomedical and clinical engineers. Our study aims to: (i) review and identify gaps in the current HTA guidelines on medical devices, (ii) propose recommendations to optimize the impact of HTA for medical devices, and (iii) reach a consensus among biomedical engineers on these recommendations.

A gray literature search of HTA agency Web sites for assessment methods guidelines on devices was conducted. The International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineers (IFMBE) then convened a structured focus group, with experts from different fields, to identify potential gaps in the current HTA guidelines, and to develop recommendations to fill these perceived gaps. The thirty recommendations generated from the focus group were circulated in a Delphi survey to eighty-five biomedical and clinical engineers.

Thirty-two panelists, from seventeen countries, participated in the Delphi survey. The responses showed a strong agreement on twenty-seven of thirty recommendations. Some uncertainties remain about the methods to accurately assess the effectiveness and safety, and interoperability of a medical device with other devices or within the clinical setting.

As medical devices differ from drug therapies, current HTA methods may not accurately reflect the conclusions of their assessment. Recommendations informed by the focus group discussions and Delphi survey responses aimed to address the perceived gaps, and to provide a more integrated approach in medical device assessments in combining engineering with other perspectives, such as clinical, economic, patient, human factors, ethical, and environmental.

The Health Technology Expert Review Panel is an advisory body to Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) that develops recommendations on health technology assessments (HTAs) for nondrug health technologies using a deliberative framework. The framework spans several domains, including the environmental impact of the health technology(ies). Our research objective was to identify articles on frameworks, methods or case studies on the environmental impact assessment of health technologies.

A literature search in major databases and a focused gray literature search were conducted. The main search concepts were HTA and environmental impact/sustainability. Eligible articles were those that described a conceptual framework or methods used to conduct an environmental assessment of health technologies, and case studies on the application of an environmental assessment.

From the 1,710 citations identified, thirteen publications were included. Two articles presented a framework to incorporate environmental assessment in HTAs. Other approaches described weight of evidence practices and comprehensive and integrated environmental impact assessments. Central themes derived include transparency and repeatability, integration of components in a framework or of evidence into a single outcome, data availability to ensure the accuracy of findings, and familiarity with the approach used.

Each framework and methods presented have different foci related to the ecosystem, health economics, or engineering practices. Their descriptions suggested transparency, repeatability, and the integration of components or of evidence into a single outcome as their main strengths. Our review is an initial step of a larger initiative by CADTH to develop the methods and processes to address the environmental impact question in an HTA.

Although there is increased awareness of patient and public involvement (PPI) among Health Technology Assessment (HTA) organizations, evaluations of PPI initiatives are relatively scarce. Our objective as members of HTAi's Patient and Citizen Involvement Group (PCIG) was to advance understanding of the range of evaluation strategies adopted by HTA organizations and their potential usefulness.

In March 2016, a survey was sent to HTA organizations through the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and contacts of members of HTAi's PCIG. Respondents were asked about their organizational structure; how patients and members of the public are involved; whether and how PPI initiatives have been evaluated, and, if so, which facilitators and challenges to evaluation were found and how results were used and disseminated.

Fifteen programs from twelve countries responded that involved patient (14/15) and members of the public (10/15) in HTA activities. Seven programs evaluated their PPI activities, including participant satisfaction (5/7), process evaluations (5/7) and impact evaluations (4/7). Evaluation results were used to improve PPI activities, identify education and training needs, and direct strategic priorities. Facilitators and challenges revolved around the need for stakeholder buy-in, sufficient resources, senior leadership, and including patients in evaluations. Participants also provided suggestions based on their experiences for others embarking on this work, for example including patients and members of the public in the process.

We identified a small but diverse set of HTA organizations internationally that are evaluating their PPI activities. Our results add to the limited literature by documenting a range of evaluation strategies that reflect the range of rationales and approaches to PPI in HTA. It will be important for HTA organizations to draw on formal evaluation theories and methods when planning future evaluations, and to also share their approaches and experiences with evaluation.

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of preoperative skin antiseptic preparations and application techniques for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs).

Systematic review of the literature using Medline, EMBASE, and other databases, for the period January 2001 to June 2011.

Comparative studies (including randomized and nonrandomized trials) of preoperative skin antisepsis preparations and application techniques were included. Two researchers reviewed each study and extracted data using standardized tables developed before the study. Studies were reviewed for their methodological quality and clinical findings.

Twenty studies (n = 9,520 patients) were included in the review. The results indicated that presurgical antiseptic showering is effective for reducing skin flora and may reduce SSI rates. Given the heterogeneity of the studies and the results, conclusions about which antiseptic is more effective at reducing SSIs cannot be drawn.

The evidence suggests that preoperative antiseptic showers reduce bacterial colonization and may be effective at preventing SSIs. The antiseptic application method is inconsequential, and data are lacking to suggest which antiseptic solution is the most effective. Disinfectant products are often mixed with alcohol or water, which makes it difficult to form overall conclusions regarding an active ingredient. Large, well-conducted randomized controlled trials with consistent protocols comparing agents in the same bases are needed to provide unequivocal evidence on the effectiveness of one antiseptic preparation over another for the prevention of SSIs.

Although an increasing number of medical devices are labeled “for single use only,” cleaning and reuse of single-use medical devices continues, because of the economic incentive. We conducted a survey of the economic literature to obtain the current evidence available and to assess the costs and benefits of reusing single-use medical devices.

A comprehensive literature search was carried out to identify articles that compared single use and reuse of single-use medical devices and that met specific scientific criteria, including evaluation of economic outcomes. Each selected article was independently reviewed by 2 reviewers to extract cost and clinical outcome data and to assess the quality of the study.

Nine published articles met the selection criteria. The savings were about 49% of the direct cost. These savings would be offset by adverse-event costs, but none were detected. However, quality of the studies was generally poor.

There is little available evidence of quality in the published literature to assess the practice of reuse of single-use medical devices. Moreover, data on clinical outcomes are missing and, where available, cannot be attributed specifically to the reuse of single-use medical devices.