Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches

Hussein Z Noorani · Don Husereau · Rhonda Boudreau · Becky Skidmore

143 citations0/0 files storedInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life Technology Assessment and Management Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to identify and compare various practical and current approaches of health technology assessment (HTA) priority setting. 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 literature indexed from 1996 onward. We also searched Web sites of HTA agencies as well as HTAi and ISTAHC conference abstracts. Agency representatives were contacted for information about their priority-setting processes. Reports on practical approaches selected through these sources were identified independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: A total of twelve current priority-setting frameworks from eleven agencies were identified. Ten countries were represented: Canada, Denmark, England, Hungary, Israel, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, and United States. Fifty-nine unique HTA priority-setting criteria were divided into eleven categories (alternatives; budget impact; clinical impact; controversial nature of proposed technology; disease burden; economic impact; ethical, legal, or psychosocial implications; evidence; interest; timeliness of review; variation in rates of use). Differences across HTA agencies were found regarding procedures for categorizing, scoring, and weighing of policy criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Variability exists in the methods for priority setting of health technology assessment across HTA agencies. Quantitative rating methods and consideration of cost benefit for priority setting were seldom used. These study results will assist HTA agencies that are re-visiting or developing their prioritization methods.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 143 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies

Cited by

2018Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA 2008Engaging the public in priority‐setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens’ jury 2011Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions 2016Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low‐Income and Lower‐Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks 2012Health care priority setting in Norway a multicriteria decision analysis 2012Decision-Making Criteria among National Policymakers in Five Countries: A Discrete Choice Experiment Eliciting Relative Preferences for Equity and Efficiency 2010Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH 2009Health technology assessment: A comprehensive framework for evidence-based recommendations in Ontario

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.