Healthcare reform through appropriate care is a current focus for many jurisdictions. A variety of policy options, or “levers,” are available to decision makers to influence appropriate care. However, these levers are not always identified in advance of developing policy recommendations, and few direct, empirical analyses are available to support their selection. An appropriate care policy lever inventory was developed for health technology assessment (HTA) users in Alberta, Canada, to support HTA scoping and policy development.

Relevant information was identified by a single reviewer through a scoping search of MEDLINE, forward and backward searching, and targeted gray literature searches. An Excel-based inventory was populated with a list of policy levers and their descriptions, policy effectiveness, and implementation considerations. Filters were developed to identify levers based on key characteristics. The inventory was iteratively refined through presentations to and feedback from key user groups.

The inventory contained 53 policy levers aiming to influence service provision, clinician behavior, fiscal policies, populations or organizations, and patient behavior. The levers varied in how they restrict decision-making. Few levers were considered high impact (>5% change to behavior, utilization, or cost) or well-supported (>10 studies reporting effectiveness). Stakeholders found the inventory information useful, particularly for considering potential levers not frequently utilized within their respective programs. A user guide and case examples were also developed to help users learn to navigate the inventory.

An inventory of policy levers, which can be tailored to specific clinical areas and topics, can be of assistance to healthcare decision makers developing and utilizing HTAs to improve appropriateness of care. With limited indication-specific evidence, policy makers must utilize the broader evidence base on appropriate care policy levers to select and implement strategies that are applicable and transferable to their context. Challenges remain in systematically identifying all relevant literature given the inventory’s breadth, and in updating the inventory to reflect new evidence.

Many publicly funded health systems use a mix of privately and publicly operated providers of care to deliver elective surgical services. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the role of privately operated but publicly funded provision of surgical services for adult patients who had cataract or orthopedic surgery within publicly funded health systems in high-income countries.

Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and EBSCO EconLit) were searched on 26 March 2021, and gray literature sources were searched on 6 April 2021. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify studies, and extracted data. The outcomes evaluated include accessibility, acceptability, safety, clinical effectiveness, efficiency, and cost/cost-effectiveness.

Twenty-nine primary studies met the inclusion criteria and were synthesized narratively. We found mixed results across each of our reported outcomes. Wait times were shorter for patients treated in private facilities. There was evidence that some private facilities cherry-pick or cream-skim by selecting less complex patients, which increases the postoperative length of stay and costs for public facilities, restricts access to private facilities for certain groups of patients, and increases inequality within the health system. Seven studies found improved safety outcomes in private facilities, noting that private patients had a lower preoperative risk of complications. Only two studies reported cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes. One costing study concluded that private facilities’ costs were lower than those of public facilities, and a cost–utility study showed that private contracting to reduce public waiting times for joint replacement was cost-effective.

Limited evidence exists that private-sector contracts address existing healthcare delivery problems. Value for money also remains to be evaluated properly.

To facilitate moving from research findings to conclusions when conducting systematic reviews (SRs) and health technology assessments (HTAs), evidence grading systems (EGSs) have been developed to assess the quality of bodies of evidence and communicate (un)certainty about the effects of evaluated technologies. Use of EGSs has become an essential step in conducting SRs and HTAs and those relying on review conclusions should be aware of EGSs’ potential limitations.

This study aims to identify EGSs used in SR and HTA practice, and summarize findings on their inter-rater reliability (IRR). Relevant sources were searched to identify EGSs used in recently published SRs and IRR studies of available EGSs. Members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment were surveyed regarding their current approaches.

Preliminary results indicate that only two conceptually similar EGSs are currently used by several organizations in SR and HTA practice: (i) the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and (ii) the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center Program (AHRQ-EPC). Both approaches emphasize a structured and transparent method. However, results from published IRR studies suggest there is a risk for variability in their application due to researchers’ diverse levels of training and experience in using them, and the complexity and heterogeneity of evidence in SRs.

Validated EGSs can play a critical role in whether and how research findings are eventually translated into practice. However, our results indicate a low level of uptake of EGSs in HTA practice. Both currently used EGSs are susceptible to misuse that allows different researchers to grade the same body of evidence differently, and their performance has not been robustly explored in terms of IRR. If these results stand up to replication, one cannot rely on conclusions of published SRs, which has implications for the decisions they inform.

Thorough documentation and clear reporting are essential when conducting a comprehensive literature search for a health technology assessment (HTA) or systematic review. The ultimate goal of this process is transparency and reproducibility with the added benefit of increasing the reader's confidence in the research. Thorough documentation of the search also allows for critical appraisal of the methodology used and facilitates future updating of a review (1,2).

It has been found that large numbers of systematic review searches are inadequately documented and there is little consensus on best practices for reporting standards (3).

As part of the SuRe Info Project, we conducted a review of all current reporting standards relevant to HTAs and systematic reviews in addition to looking at the published literature on this topic in order to synthesize the evidence in this area and create a standard set of agreed upon recommendations.

We conducted a comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, and LISA (Library & Info Studies Abstracts) databases. We also examined the Equator Network (http://www.equator-network.org/) website. Reference lists of included studies and reporting guidelines were also consulted. Eleven reporting guidelines and eight studies were included in the review by two independent reviewers. Anything published before 2006, that was not a research article (other than the guidelines), and/or that did not provide new recommendations (that is, a review of another set of recommendations) was excluded.

After collecting data on the suggested reporting elements described in the literature, we pooled our results to create an overarching list of the most commonly recommended elements to describe and the most commonly recommended methods to use when documenting a comprehensive search. Not only did these elements pertain to documenting the search strategy for the final report, but they also pertained to the protocol and the abstract of a review.

It is hoped that this overview of the literature and compilation of the evidence will clarify some of the confusion that seems to exist when documenting and reporting searches and perhaps it will even help to reduce the existence of poorly described strategies in the research literature.