Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evidence-Based Decision Making 3: Health Technology Assessment

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Clinical Epidemiology

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology ((MIMB,volume 2249))

Abstract

This chapter begins with a brief introduction to health technology assessment (HTA). HTA is concerned with the systematic evaluation of the consequences of the adoption and use of new health technologies and to improve the evidence on existing technologies. The objective of mainstream HTA is to support evidence-based decision- and policy-making that encourage the uptake of efficient and effective health-care technologies. This chapter provides a basic framework for conducting an HTA, as well as some fundamental concepts and challenges in assessing health technologies. Whether HTA is beneficial—supporting timely access to needed technologies—or detrimental depends on three critical issues: when the assessment is performed; how it is performed; and how the findings are used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Facey K (2006) INAHTA health technology assessment (HTA) glossary. http://www.inahta.org/upload/HTA_resources/Edu_INAHTA_glossary_July_2006_final.pdf. Accessed 15 Apr 2014

  2. World Health Organization (n.d.) Health Technology Assessment. https://www.who.int/health-technology-assessment/about/Defining/en/. Accessed 21 May 2020

  3. Goodman CS (2004) Introduction to health technology assessment. The Lewin Group, Falls Church, VA

    Google Scholar 

  4. Soares MO, Walker S, Palmer SJ, Sculpher MJ (2018) Establishing the value of diagnostic and prognostic tests in health technology assessment. Med Decis Mak 38(4):495–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Teerawattananon Y, Teo YY, Dabak S et al (2019) Tackling the 3 big challenges confronting health technology assessment development in Asia: a commentary. Value Health Reg Issues 21:66–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Banta D (2003) The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 63(2):21–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. World Health Organization (n.d.) Health Technology Assessment. https://www.who.int/medical_devices/assessment/en/. Accessed 9 Mar 2020

  8. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) About the Health Technology Assessment Service. https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth/what-we-do/products-services/hta. Accessed 9 Mar 2020

  9. Goodman CS, Snider G, Flynn K (1996) Health care technology assessment in VA. Management decision and research center; Health Services Research and Development Service, Washington, DC, pp. 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jonsson E et al (2002) Summary report of the ECHTA/ECAHI project. European Collaboration for Health Technology Assessment/Assessment of Health Interventions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18(2):218–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Poulsen PB (1999) Economic evaluation and the diffusion of health technology. Health technology assessment and diffusion of health technology. Odense University Press, Odense, pp 183–220

    Google Scholar 

  12. Grimes K, Prada G, Astles P et al (2017) Health technology assessment in Canada: opportunities for optimization and redesign. The Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  13. National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR) Health Technology Assessment. National Library of Medicine. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/ta10104.html#Heading2. Accessed 12 Mar 2020

  14. Franklin C (1993) Basic concepts and fundamental issues in technology assessment. Intensive Care Med 19(2):117–121

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Department of Health Innovation and Stakeholder Relations Division Research and Innovation Branch (2017) Maximizing the impact of health technology assessment: the Alberta framework. Government of Alberta, Edmonton

    Google Scholar 

  16. Government of British Columbia (n.d.) Health Technology Assessment. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/about-bc-s-health-care-system/partners/health-authorities/bc-health-technology-assessment. Accessed 12 Mar 2020

  17. Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H (2010) Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26(3):341–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Health Quality Ontario (2018) Health Technology Assessments Methods and Process Guide Version 2.0. https://www.hqontario.ca/Portals/0/documents/evidence/reports/hta-methods-and-process-guide-en.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2020

  19. Noorani HZ et al (2007) Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23(3):310–315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. EUnetHTA (2018) HTA Core Model Version 3.0 for the full assessment of Diagnostic Technologies, Medical and Surgical Interventions, Pharmaceuticals and Screening Technologies. https://eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HTACoreModel3.0-1.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2020

  21. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2003) CADTH: Home Page [web site]. CADTH, Ottawa, ON

    Google Scholar 

  22. Newfoundland and Labrador Center for Applied Health Research (n.d.) Contextualized Health Research Synthesis Program. https://www.nlcahr.mun.ca/CHRSP/. Accessed 19 May 2020

  23. Lampe K et al (2009) The HTA core model: a novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 25(S2):9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. European Patients Academy (2016) Ethical, social, and legal issues (ELSI) in HTA. https://wwweupatieu/health-technology-assessment/ethical-social-and-legal-issues-elsi-in-hta/. Accessed 12 Mar 2020

  25. Assasi N, Tarride JE, O’Reilly D, Schwartz L (2016) Steps toward improving ethical evaluation in health technology assessment: a proposed framework. BMC Med Ethics 17:34

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Hofmann BM (2008) Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Tech Assess Health Care 24(04):423–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mathes T, Willms G, Polus S et al (2018) Health technology assessment of public health interventions: an analysis of characteristics and comparison of methods—study protocol. Syst Rev 7:79

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Tantivess S (2014) Social and ethical analysis in health technology assessment. J Med Assoc Thai 97(Suppl 5):S81–S86

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2008) Social value judgments: principles for the development of NICE guidance. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, pp 1–36

    Google Scholar 

  30. Giacomini M et al (2012) Social and ethical values for health technology assessment in Ontario. Health quality Ontario social values and ethics evaluation subcommittee. Health Quality Transformation Ontario, Toronto, ON

    Google Scholar 

  31. INAHTA Ethics Working Group (2005) INAHTA’s working group on handling ethical issues. Final Report. June 2005

    Google Scholar 

  32. Niederstadt C, Droste S (2010) Reporting and presenting information retrieval processes: the need for optimizing common practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26(4):450–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Beauchamp TL, Childress J (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lysdahl KB, Oortwijn W, van der Wilt GJ et al (2016) Ethical analysis in HTA of complex health interventions. BMC Med Ethics 17:16

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Assasi N et al (2014) Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 14(2):203–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Van der Wilt GJ, Reuzel R, Banta HD (2000) The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth 21(1):103–115

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Arellano LE, Willett JM, Borry P (2011) International survey on attitudes toward ethics in health technology assessment: an exploratory study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 27(1):50–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Saarni SI et al (2008) Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bull World Health Organ 86(8):617–623

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Hofmann B (2005) On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis Prax 3(4):277–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jadad AR, Moher D, Klassen TP (1998) Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: II. How did the authors find the studies and assess their quality? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 152(8):812–817

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR) (2020) Health Technology Assessment. National Library of Medicine. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/ta10109.html. Accessed 14 Mar 2020

  42. National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR) (2020) Health Technology Assessment. National Library of Medicine. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/hta101/ta10106.html. Accessed 14 Mar 2020

  43. Goodman CS (2004) Retrieving evidence for HTA, in HTA 101: introduction to health technology assessment. Falls Church, VA, Lewin Group

    Google Scholar 

  44. Savoie I et al (2003) Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19(1):168–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Royle P, Waugh N (2003) Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. Health Technol Assess 7(34):iii, , ix–x, 1–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Searching for studies. In: JPT H, Green S (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 510. The Cochrane collaboration, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  47. Saulle R, Lia L, La Torre G (2016) The use of systematic reviews in HTA. Senses Sci 3:250–262

    Google Scholar 

  48. U.S. National Library of Medicine (1991) Databases, bibliographic, in MeSH database. US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ostawal A, Arca E, Braun N, Alleman C (2019) Balancing Global HTA Requirements For Literature Reviews Across Europe, North America, and Asia. Pharmerit International. https://www.pharmerit.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/BALANCING-GLOBAL-HTA-REQUIREMENTS-FOR-LITERATURE-REVIEWS-ACROSS-EUROPE-NORTH-AMERICA-AND-ASIA.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2020

  50. Last JM (2001) A dictionary of epidemiology, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  51. McAuley L et al (2000) Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 356(9237):1228–1231

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Centre for Reviews Dissemination University of York (2009) Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. The Centre, York

    Google Scholar 

  53. Institute of Health Economics, Osteba, and AUnEts (2013) Health technology assessment on the Net international, Institute of Health Economics (IHE), Edmonton, AB

    Google Scholar 

  54. CADTH (2019) Grey Matters: a practical tool for searching health-related grey literature. May 2019. https://www.cadth.ca/resources/finding-evidence/grey-matters. Accessed 14 Mar 2020

  55. Wood H, Arber M (2019) Search strategy development. HTAi. http://vortal.htai.org/index.php?q=node/790. Accessed 20 May 2020

  56. Jizba R (2007) Measuring search effectiveness. In: Creighton University Health Sciences Library and Learning Resources Center. Creighton University, Omaha, NE

    Google Scholar 

  57. Healthcare Improvement Scotland (2019) A guide to conducting rapid qualitative evidence synthesis for health technology assessment.. HTAi. https://htai.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Rapid-qualitative-evidence-synthesis-guide.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2020

  58. EUnetHTA (2016) Process of information retrieval for systematic reviews and health technology assessments on clinical effectiveness. https://www.eunethta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Guideline_Information_Retrieval_V1-1_0.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2020

  59. Straus SE et al (2005) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM, 3rd edn. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  60. Liberati A et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Angelis A, Lange A, Kanavos P (2018) Using health technology assessment to assess the value of new medicines: results of a systematic review and expert consultation across eight European countries. Euro J Health Econ 19(1):123–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Berry C, Corcoran D, Mangion K (2019) Cardiovascular health technology assessment: recommendations to improve the quality of evidence. Open Heart 6(i):e000930. https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2018-00930

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Heitman E (1998) Ethical issues in technology assessment. Conceptual categories and procedural considerations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 14(3):544–566

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Guyatt G, Rennie D (2002) User’s guides to the medical literature, vol 5. American Medication Association Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  65. Antman EM et al (1992) A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 268(2):240–248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1993) The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad Sci 703:125–133; discussion 133–4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  68. Flemming K, Booth A, Garside R et al (2019) Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ Glob Health 4:e000882

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Coburn D (2007) Managing decision making under uncertainty: perspectives from a central administrator. OECD Health Project. Health Technologies and Decision Making. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris, pp 119–130

    Google Scholar 

  70. Goeree R, Levin L (2006) Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: the PRUFE framework—an integral part of Ontario’s evidence-based HTPA process. PharmacoEconomics 24(11):1143–1156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. McIsaac ML, Goeree R, Brophy JM (2007) Primary data collection in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23(1):24–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM (2003) Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 290(12):1624–1632

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Lilford RJ et al (2001) Issues in methodological research: perspectives from researchers and commissioners. Health Technol Assess 5(8):1–57

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Health Technology Assessment Task Group (2004) Health Technology Strategy 1.0: Final Report. Health Canada: Ottawa, ON

    Google Scholar 

  75. Detsky AS, Naglie IG (1990) A clinician’s guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 113(2):147–154

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Drummond M et al (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  77. Eisenberg JM (1989) Clinical economics. A guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 262(20):2879–2886

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. European Patients’ Academy (2016) Economic evaluation in HTA. EUPATI. https://www.eupati.eu/health-technology-assessment/economic-evaluation-in-hta/. Accessed 21 May 2020

  79. Richardson J, Schlander M (2018) Health technology assessment (HTA) and economic evaluation: efficiency or fairness first. J Market Acces Health Policy 7(1):1557981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Lomas J (2019) Incorporating affordability concerns within cost-effectiveness analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health 22:898–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Robinson R (1993) Costs and cost-minimisation analysis. BMJ 307:726–728

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Tarride JE et al (2009) Approaches for economic evaluations of health care technologies. J Am Coll Radiol 6(5):307–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Poulsen PB (2001) The economy. In: Kristensen FB, Horder M, Poulsen PB (eds) Health technology assessment handbook. Danish Institute for Health Technology Assessment, Copenhagen, pp 96–121

    Google Scholar 

  84. Culyer A, Chalkidou K (2019) Economic evaluation for health investments en route to universal health coverage: cost-benefit analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis? Value Health 22(1):99–103

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Weinstein M, Stason W (1977) Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. N Engl J Med 296:716–721

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Fox-Rushby JA, Mills A, Walker DG (2001) Setting health priorities: the development of cost-effectiveness league. Bull World Health Org 79:679–680

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Canadian Agency for Drugs Technologies in Health (2006) Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada, vol 3. Canadian Agency for Drugs Technologies in Health, Ottawa, ON

    Google Scholar 

  88. Almeida ND, Mines L, Nicolau I et al (2019) A framework for aiding the translation of scientific evidence into policy: the experience of a hospital-based technology assessment unit. Internat J Tech Assess Health Care 35(3):204–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (2015) Process for developing recommendations. Ottawa. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/HTERP_Process.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2020

  90. Straus S, Tetroe I, Graham ID (2013) Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice. BMJ Books. ISBN: 978-1-118-41354-8

    Google Scholar 

  91. Sculpher M, Drummond M, Buxton M (1997) The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy 2(1):26–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Drummond M, Weatherly H (2000) Implementing the findings of health technology assessments. If the CAT got out of the bag, can the TAIL wag the dog? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 16(1):1–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Pan American Health Organization (1998) Developing health technology assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  94. Mowatt G et al (1998) When is the ‘right’ time to initiate an assessment of a health technology? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 14(2):372–386

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Buxton M (1987) Problems in the economic appraisal of new health technology: the evaluation of heart transplants i the UK. In: Drummond M (ed) Economic appraisal of health technology in the European Community. Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford, pp 103–118

    Google Scholar 

  96. Eisenberg JM (1999) Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA 282(19):1865–1869

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Stevens AR, Milne R, Burls A (2003) Health technology assessment: history and demand. J Public Health Med 25(2):98–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH), St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Daria O’Reilly, Kaitryn Campbell, James M. Bowen, Nazila Assasi & Ron Goeree

  2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Daria O’Reilly, Kaitryn Campbell, Meredith Vanstone, James M. Bowen, Lisa Schwartz, Nazila Assasi & Ron Goeree

  3. Division of Community Health and Humanities, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Richard Audas

  4. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Meredith Vanstone & Lisa Schwartz

Authors
  1. Daria O’Reilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Audas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kaitryn Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Meredith Vanstone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James M. Bowen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lisa Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nazila Assasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ron Goeree
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Audas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Patrick S. Parfrey

  2. Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL, Canada

    Brendan J. Barrett

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

About this protocol

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this protocol

O’Reilly, D. et al. (2021). Evidence-Based Decision Making 3: Health Technology Assessment. In: Parfrey, P.S., Barrett, B.J. (eds) Clinical Epidemiology. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 2249. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1138-8_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1138-8_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-1137-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-1138-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation