Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/118821
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Health technology reassessment: the art of the possible
Author: MacKean, G.
Noseworthy, T.
Elshaug, A.G.
Leggett, L.
Littlejohns, P.
Berezanski, J.
Clement, F.
Citation: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2013; 29(4):418-423
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Issue Date: 2013
ISSN: 0266-4623
1471-6348
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Gail MacKean, Tom Noseworthy, Adam G. Elshaug, Laura Leggett, Peter Littlejohns, Joan Berezanski and Fiona Clement
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Health technology reassessment (HTR) is "a structured, evidence-based assessment of the clinical, social, ethical, and economic effects of a technology currently used in the healthcare system, to inform optimal use of that technology in comparison to its alternatives." The purpose of this study is to describe the key themes in the context of current HTR activities and propose a way forward for this newly emerging field. METHODS: Data were gathered from a workshop held as part of the 2012 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) symposium. The workshop consisted of two panel presentations followed by discussion; data gathered, including presentations and rich audience discussion transcripts, were analyzed for key themes emerging in the field of HTR using constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: The language chosen to describe HTR will set the tone for engagement. The identification of champions at multiple levels and political will are essential. Key lessons from international experience are: disinvestment is difficult, focus on clinical areas not specific technologies, identify clear goals of the HTR agenda. Six key themes were identified to move the HTR agenda forward: emphasize integration over segregation, focus on development of HTR methods and processes, processes are context-specific but lessons must be shared, build capacity in synergistic interdisciplinary fields, develop meaningful stakeholder engagement, strengthen postimplementation monitoring and evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: To move this field forward, we must continue to build on international experiences with a focus on developing novel methodological approaches to generating, incorporating, and implementing evidence into policy and practice.
Keywords: Internationality
Technology Assessment, Biomedical
Decision Making, Organizational
Rights: © Cambridge University Press 2013 The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence . The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462313000494
Grant ID: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/627061
Published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0266462313000494
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 4
Public Health publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
hdl_118821.pdfPublished version87.73 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.