Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38321468›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2024

Topic identification, selection, and prioritization for health technology assessment in selected countries: a mixed study design.

Julia Bidonde, Vigdis Lauvrak, Aparna Ananthakrishnan, Pritaporn Kingkaew, Elizabeth F Peacocke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Medical insurance, livelihood capital and public health in China.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Julia Bidonde *Division of Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Skøyen, Postbox 222, 0213, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7535-678X
Vigdis LauvrakEvidence and Health Technology Assessment, EviHTA, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1352-8870
Aparna AnanthakrishnanHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7707-2729
Pritaporn KingkaewHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2626-7806
Elizabeth F Peacocke *Division of Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Skøyen, Postbox 222, 0213, Oslo, Norway. Elizabeth.Peacocke@fhi.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6930-9581

Funding

Norwegian Agency for Development and Cooperation (Norad) QZA-21/0082Norwegian agency for development cooperation (Norad) QZA-18/0102
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited evidence-informed guidance on TISP processes for countries where health technology assessment (HTA) is in a nascent phase. We aimed to explore the range of topic identification, selection and prioritization (TISP) processes and practices for HTA in selected countries and identify aspects relevant to emerging HTA systems.

methodsThis mixed design study included a systematic literature review, an electronic survey, and individual interviews. We conducted a systematic literature review with criteria that were developed a priori to identify countries deemed to have a recently formalized HTA system. Based on the literature review, a twenty-three item online survey was shared with the identified countries, we completed follow-up interviews with ten participants who have experience with HTA. We analyzed documents, survey responses and interview transcripts thematically to identify lessons related to TISP processes and practices.

resultsThe literature review identified 29 nine candidate countries as having a "potential" recently formalized HTA system. Twenty-one survey responses were analyzed and supplemented with ten individual interviews. We found variation in countries' approaches to TISP - particularly between pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Results indicate that TISP is heavily driven by policy makers, expert involvement, and to a lesser extent, relevant stakeholders. The use of horizon-scanning and early warning systems is uncommon. Interviewee participants provided further insight to the survey data, reporting that political awareness and an institutional framework were important to support TISP. TISP can be optimized by stronger national regulations and legislative structures, in addition to education and advocacy about HTA among politicians and decision-makers. In some settings regional networks have been useful, particularly in the development of TISP guidelines and methodologies. Additionally, the technical capacity to conduct TISP, and access to relevant local data were factors limiting TISP in national settings. Increased network collaboration and capacity building were reported as future needs.

conclusionsThis study provides current insights into a topic where there is limited published peer reviewed literature. TISP is an important first step of HTA, and topics should be selected and prioritized based on local need and relevance. The limited capacity for TISP in settings where HTA is emerging may be supported by local and international collaboration to increase capacity and knowledge. To succeed, both TISP and HTA need to be embedded within national health care priority setting and decision-making. More in-depth understanding of where countries are situtated in formalizing the TISP process may help others to overcome factors that facilitate or hinder progress.

Indexed as

HTAPriority settingSurveys and questionnairesTechnology assessmentTISPTopic identificationTopic prioritizationTopic selection

Identifiers

PMID38321468
PMCPMC10848436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.