ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025
Driving policy dialogue on health technology assessment in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: reporting from an initiative of Health Technology Assessment International.
Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2025. 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.
- Policy dialogue on health technology assessment in Middle East and North Africa: reporting from an HTAi initiative.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- Health technology assessment in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: an updated SWOT analysis.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Review
- Connecting minds and catalyzing collaboration: the interest groups of health technology assessment international.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) represents a diverse region facing complex healthcare challenges, including resource constraints, fragmented systems, and limited access to evidence-based decision-making tools. Health technology assessment (HTA) offers a critical framework for addressing these issues by informing efficient allocation of healthcare resources. In April 2024, HTA International (HTAi) convened a policy dialogue in Astana, Kazakhstan, bringing together stakeholders from 12 EECA countries and international experts to discuss HTA advancement in the region. The dialogue highlighted systemic barriers, including political instability, capacity shortages, and fragmented data sources while exploring successful HTA implementation models in some countries. Participants emphasized the importance of political commitment, institutional frameworks, and capacity building, alongside fostering stakeholder collaboration. International organizations such as HTAi and WHO were recognized as vital enablers for technical support and knowledge sharing. Key outcomes included actionable recommendations: strengthening political advocacy, developing legal and institutional frameworks, investing in workforce development, and enhancing multistakeholder engagement. The dialogue underscored HTAi's role in catalyzing regional collaboration, providing platforms for discussion, and offering resources for capacity building. Future initiatives will focus on addressing structural weaknesses, promoting transparency, and embedding HTA into national healthcare systems to ensure equitable and evidence-based decisions. The findings reinforce the potential of HTA to enhance healthcare policy and planning in EECA, fostering resilient systems that better meet population health needs despite ongoing challenges.
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.