Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41797483›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2026

Organizational impact in healthcare in France: a decade of insights but chicken and egg situation.

Tess Martin, Giovanny Arbelaez-Garces, Christophe Roussel, Nicolas Martelli, Olivier Marcellin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Tess Martinhttps://ror.org/028rypz17Paris-Saclay University, GRADES, Faculty of Pharmacy, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1839-4306
Giovanny Arbelaez-Garceshttps://ror.org/00pg6eq24Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, ICube, UMR 7357, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6328-1338
Christophe RousselEdwards lifesciences, France.
Nicolas Martellihttps://ror.org/028rypz17Paris-Saclay University, GRADES, Faculty of Pharmacy, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5959-231X
Olivier Marcellinhttps://ror.org/052bz7812Université Paris Dauphine-PSL, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5122-1167

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOver the past decade, organizational impact (OI) has gained recognition as a key dimension in health technology assessment (HTA) in France, particularly for medical devices. Despite the publication of a national framework by the Haute Autorité de Santé in 2020, the absence of standardized methodologies continues to hinder its integration into decision making.

methodsThis commentary article traces the evolution of OI in French HTA, highlights real-world examples, and analyzes existing methodological tools, many adapted from other disciplines, that could enhance OI assessment.

resultsIt emphasizes the need for flexible, context-sensitive approaches and proposes recommendations to improve the robustness, reproducibility, and relevance of OI evaluations.

conclusionsThe article also explores the implications for pricing and reimbursement decisions, as well as hospital-based HTA practices, aiming to support more structured and evidence-informed integration of organizational considerations into HTA processes in France and beyond.

Indexed as

Technology Assessment, BiomedicalDecision MakingEquipment and SuppliesFranceHumansdecision makinghealth technology assessment (HTA)medical devices (MDs)methodological frameworksorganizational impact (OI)

Identifiers

PMID41797483
PMCPMC12979018

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.