Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The number of health interventions requiring evaluation often outweighs available resources. Thus, all health technology assessment (HTA) agencies must establish priorities for their research projects. Other organizations are similarly faced with problems of prioritization. There is, however, a lack of consensus on an appropriate method for priority setting among HTA agencies.
Objectives: This study compared various models for priority setting for HTA.
Methods: A literature search was performed across PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS and Cochrane. Given an earlier review conducted by European agencies (EUR-ASSESS project), the search was limited to 1996 onwards. We also searched web sites of HTA agencies as well as HTAi and ISTAHC conference abstracts. International experts and agency representatives were contacted for information about their priority setting processes. Reports on models selected through these sources were identified independently by two reviewers. The quality of the selected models was assessed descriptively based on variables identified in the EUR-ASSESS project.
Results: As of this writing, 29 reports from 11 HTA agencies were selected for inclusion. Nine countries were represented: Canada, Denmark, England, Hungary, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, and United States. The focus of HTA differed across agencies: two agencies focused on new or emerging technologies; five on existing technologies and four on both types of technologies. While prioritization criteria differed across agencies, similarities were also found. Clinical effectiveness and/or potential impact on health services was the most frequently cited criterion (11 agencies) followed by burden of illness (10), economic consequences (9), expected interest for technology (6), timeliness (4), and availability of alternative technologies (3). Five agencies use a scoring method to rate their research proposals. Differences across HTA agencies were found regarding procedures for categorizing, scoring and weighing of policy criteria.
Conclusions: Variability exists in the methods for prioritizing technologies for assessment within the HTA agencies. Quantitative methods for prioritizing topics were seldom used. These study results will assist those individual health care organizations who are revisiting their prioritization methods.
Objectives: This study compared various models for priority setting for HTA.
Methods: A literature search was performed across PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS and Cochrane. Given an earlier review conducted by European agencies (EUR-ASSESS project), the search was limited to 1996 onwards. We also searched web sites of HTA agencies as well as HTAi and ISTAHC conference abstracts. International experts and agency representatives were contacted for information about their priority setting processes. Reports on models selected through these sources were identified independently by two reviewers. The quality of the selected models was assessed descriptively based on variables identified in the EUR-ASSESS project.
Results: As of this writing, 29 reports from 11 HTA agencies were selected for inclusion. Nine countries were represented: Canada, Denmark, England, Hungary, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, and United States. The focus of HTA differed across agencies: two agencies focused on new or emerging technologies; five on existing technologies and four on both types of technologies. While prioritization criteria differed across agencies, similarities were also found. Clinical effectiveness and/or potential impact on health services was the most frequently cited criterion (11 agencies) followed by burden of illness (10), economic consequences (9), expected interest for technology (6), timeliness (4), and availability of alternative technologies (3). Five agencies use a scoring method to rate their research proposals. Differences across HTA agencies were found regarding procedures for categorizing, scoring and weighing of policy criteria.
Conclusions: Variability exists in the methods for prioritizing technologies for assessment within the HTA agencies. Quantitative methods for prioritizing topics were seldom used. These study results will assist those individual health care organizations who are revisiting their prioritization methods.