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
. 2020 Jan 1;9(1):27-33.
doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2019.72.

Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe

Wija Oortwijn  1 , Maarten Jansen  1 , Rob Baltussen  1
Affiliations

Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes by Health Technology Assessment Agencies Around the Globe

Wija Oortwijn et al. Int J Health Policy Manag. .

Abstract

Background: Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) were recently introduced to guide health technology assessment (HTA) agencies to improve their processes towards more legitimate decision-making. The EDP framework provides guidance that covers the HTA process, ie, contextual factors, installation of an appraisal committee, selecting health technologies and criteria, assessment, appraisal, and communication and appeal. The aims of this study were to identify the level of use of EDPs by HTA agencies, identify their needs for guidance, and to learn about best practices.

Methods: A questionnaire for an online survey was developed based on the EDP framework, consisting of elements that reflect each part of the framework. The survey was sent to members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Two weeks following the invitation, a reminder was sent. The data collection took place between September-December 2018.

Results: Contact persons from 27 member agencies filled out the survey (response rate: 54%), of which 25 completed all questions. We found that contextual factors to support HTA development and the critical elements regarding conducting and reporting on HTA are overall in place. Respondents indicated that guidance was needed for specific elements related to selecting technologies and criteria, appraisal, and communication and appeal. With regard to best practices, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, UK) were most often mentioned.

Conclusion: This is the first survey among HTA agencies regarding the use of EDPs and provides useful information for further developing a practical guide for HTA agencies around the globe. The results could support HTA agencies in improving their processes towards more legitimate decision-making, as they could serve as a baseline measurement for future monitoring and evaluation.

Keywords: Decision-Making; Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes; Guidance; Health Technology Assessment; Legitimate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Børlum Kristensen F, Husereau D, Huić M. et al. Identifying the need for good practices in health technology assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA. Value in Health. 2019;22(1):13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baltussen R, Jansen PMJ, Bijlmakers L. et al. Value assessment frameworks for HTA agencies: the organization of evidence-informed deliberative processes. Value Health. 2017;20(2):256–260. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.019.v. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oortwijn W, Determann D, Schiffers K. et al. Towards integrated health technology assessment for improving decision-making in selected countries. Value Health. 2017;20(8):1121–1130. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.03.011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J. et al. Deliberations about Deliberative Methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(2):239–251. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00343-x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ. National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. BMJ. 2004;329:224. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7459.224. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources