Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40083319›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2025

Navigating change: a comparative analysis of health technology assessment reforms across agencies - processes, drivers, and interdependencies.

Gayathri Kumar, Priscila Radu, Patricia Cubi-Molla, Martina Garau, Eleanor Bell, Jia Pan, Ramiro Gilardino, Julie Van Bavel, Agnes Brandtmüller, Katherine Nelson and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors.

Gayathri KumarOHE - Office of Health Economics, London, UK.
Priscila RaduOHE - Office of Health Economics, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1364-8629
Patricia Cubi-MollaOHE - Office of Health Economics, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2803-7337
Martina GarauOHE - Office of Health Economics, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0762-4743
Eleanor BellUKHSA, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6733-2785
Jia PanAdelphi Values, London, UK.
Ramiro GilardinoMSD, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9238-7729
Julie Van BavelMSD, Zurich, Switzerland.
Agnes BrandtmüllerMSD, Budapest, Hungary.
Katherine NelsonDrexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Melinda GoodallGoodall HTA Consulting Limited, ManchesterUK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHealth technology assessment (HTA) is a critical part of healthcare decision making in many countries. Changes in Methods and Processes (M&P) of HTA agencies can affect the time and degree of patient access to treatments. Published literature focuses on the different M&P adopted by HTA agencies, rather than on how these have come about over time. Our study investigates key HTA reforms and explores their drivers and interdependencies in a set of HTA agencies in Europe, Asia-Pacific, and North America.

methodsWe conducted a targeted literature review on M&P guidelines and subsequent changes to those, for 14 HTA agencies. We supplemented and validated initial findings with 29 semi-structured interviews with country-specific experts. We used analytical tools to create process maps, proactivity and influence networks, and clusters of HTA agencies.

resultsWe found that processes leading to M&P reforms follow similar steps across HTA agencies. The three most important drivers to reforms were HTA practice and guidelines in other countries; the healthcare policy, legal, and political context within the agency's country; and experience of challenges in the assessment by the HTA body itself. International collaborations have the potential to accelerate the evolution of HTA systems and the implementation of reforms.

conclusionWe identified PBAC (Australia), CDA-AMC (Canada), NICE (England), IQWiG (Germany), and ZIN (the Netherlands) as HTA agencies that are catalysts of HTA reforms as well as internationally influential. International collaborations may represent a useful route to accelerate changes as long as they ensure wide stakeholder engagement at an early stage.

Indexed as

Health Care ReformTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHealth PolicyHumansbiomedicalhealth care evaluation mechanismsmethodspolicytechnology assessment

Identifiers

PMID40083319
PMCPMC12018853

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.