ArticleBMC health services research2018
A qualitative exploration of early assessment of innovative medical technologies.
Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Commentary: Reflections on defining Early HTA.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Health technology assessment framework for artificial intelligence-based technologies.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- Use of Social Media for Implementing Diagnoses, Consultation, Training, and Case Reporting Among Medical Professionals to Improve Patient Care: Case Study of WeChat Groups Across Health Care Settings.JMIR medical education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHospitals increasingly make decisions about early development of and investment in innovative medical technologies (IMTs), but at present often without an early assessment of their potential to ensure selection of the most promising candidates for further development. This paper explores how early assessment is carried out in different health organisations and then discusses relevant learning points for hospitals.
methodsA qualitative study design with a structured interview guide covering four themes was used. Content analyses of interview notes were performed covering four predetermined themes: context, basis for decision-making, process and structure, and perceptions. A fifth theme, handling cognitive bias, was identified during data analysis.
resultsA total of 11 organisations participated; eight from the private health industry and three public hospitals. The interviews identified four areas in which early assessment is performed in similar manner across the studied organisations and four areas where differences exist between public hospitals and private organisations. Public hospitals indicate a lower degree of formalised early assessment and less satisfaction with how early assessment is performed, compared to private organisations. Based on the above findings, two learning points may carry promise for hospitals. First, having dedicated prioritising committees for IMTs making stop/go decisions. This committee is separate from the IMT development processes and involved staff. Secondly, the committee should base decisions on a transparent early assessment decision-support tool, which include a broad set of domains, is iterative, describes uncertainty, and minimise cognitive biases.
conclusionsSimilarities and differences in the way early assessment is done in different health organisations were identified. These findings suggest promising learning points for the development of an early assessment model for hospitals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.