Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 May 23;7(1):79.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0743-4.

Health technology assessment of public health interventions: an analysis of characteristics and comparison of methods-study protocol

Tim Mathes  1 , Gerald Willms  2 , Stephanie Polus  3 , Constance Stegbauer  2 , Melanie Messer  4 , Corinna Klingler  5 , Heidi Ehrenreich  6 , Dea Niebuhr  7 , Georg Marckmann  5 , Ansgar Gerhardus  8   9 , Dawid Pieper  3
Affiliations
Review

Health technology assessment of public health interventions: an analysis of characteristics and comparison of methods-study protocol

Tim Mathes et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Conducting a health technology assessment (HTA) of public health interventions (PHIs) poses some challenges. PHIs are often complex interventions, which affect the number and degree of interactions of the aspects to be assessed. Randomized controlled trials on PHIs are rare as they are difficult to conduct because of ethical or feasibility issues. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the methodological characteristics and to compare the applied assessment methods in HTAs on PHIs.

Methods: We will systematically search HTA agencies for HTAs on PHIs published between 2012 and 2016. We will identify the HTAs by screening the webpages of members of international HTA organizations. One reviewer will screen the list of HTAs on the webpages of members of international HTA organization, and a second review will double-check the excluded records. For this methodological review, we define a PHI as a population-based intervention on health promotion or for primary prevention of chronic or non-chronic diseases. Only full HTA reports will be included. At maximum, we will include a sample of 100 HTAs. In the case that we identify more than 100 relevant HTAs, we will perform a random selection. We will extract data on effectiveness, safety and economic as well as on social, cultural, ethical and legal aspects in a priori piloted standardized tables. We will not assess the risk of bias as we focus on exploring methodological features. Data extraction will be performed by one reviewer and verified by a second. We will synthesize data using tables and in a structured narrative way.

Discussion: Our analysis will provide a comprehensive and current overview of methods applied in HTAs on PHIs. We will discuss approaches that may be promising to overcome the challenges of evaluating PHIs.

Keywords: Health promotion; Health technology assessment; Methodology review; Public health.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Tim Mathes declares no financial conflict of interest and was involved in various projects on health technology assessment. Georg Marckmann declares no financial conflict of interest and developed a framework for the ethical assessment of public health interventions [19]. Ansgar Gerhardus declares no financial conflict of interest and co-developed a framework for the assessment of socio-cultural aspects in HTA [15]. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. World Health Organization (WHO), 2015 Global Survey on Health Technology Assessment by National Authorities. 2015.
    1. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(1):89–95. doi: 10.1017/S0266462305050117. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Grimshaw JM, Haynes RB, Ouimet M, Raina P, et al. Supporting the use of health technology assessments in policy making about health systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(4):405–414. doi: 10.1017/S026646231000108X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kelly M, Morgan A, Ellis S, Younger T, Huntley J, Swann C. Evidence based public health: a review of the experience of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of developing public health guidance in England. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(6):1056–1062. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.06.032. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Petticrew M, Anderson L, Elder R, Grimshaw J, Hopkins D, Hahn R, et al. Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(11):1209–1214. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.004. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources