Selected Resources in HTA

Author(s): 

Welcome to the Selected Resources section of the HTAi Vortal, a Web resource that provides access to a selection of Web resources related to HTA organised following a simple classification.

The classification includes the following elements

Read more in the About section of the Vortal.

If you have any questions, comments or suggestions relating to Selected Resources section of the Vortal, please complete this contact form

Total votes: 1539

Basics of HTA

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-05-24

This division presents a selection of methodological publications on the basics of Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Presented are publications on:

Total votes: 1899

Definitions

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-05-31

This division presents a selection of publications on definitions and introductions to Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  1. Health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 10. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Banta D. What is technology assessment? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 7-9. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Bozic KJ, Pierce RG, Herndon JH. Health care technology assessment: Basic principles and clinical applications. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A(6): 1305-1314. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Corrao S, Arnone S, Sicurello F. La valutazione delle tecnologie sanitarie. Recenti Prog Med 2004; 95(11): 529-534. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(1): 89-95. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. Eddy D. Health technology assessment and evidence-based medicine: What are we talking about? Value Health 2009; 12(Suppl 2): S6-S7. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. Eisenberg JM. Ten lessons for evidence-based technology assessment. JAMA 1999; 282(19): 1865-1869. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  8. Fleisher LA, Mantha S, Roizen MF. Medical technology assessment: An overview. Anesth Analg 1998; 87(6): 1271-1282. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  9. Gallio D, Berto P. Health technology assessment (HTA): Definition, role and use in the changing healthcare environment. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 39(Spec No): 7-11. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  10. Garattini L, Casadei G. Health technology assessment: For whom the bell tolls? Eur J Health Econ. 2008; 9(4): 311-312. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  11. Glasser JH, Chrzanowski RS. Medical technology assessment: Adequate questions, appropriate methods, valuable answers. Health Policy 1988; 9(3): 267-276. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  12. Glasziou P. Health technology assessment: An evidence-based medicine perspective. Med Decis Making 2012; 32(1): E20-E24. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  13. Goodman CS. HTA 101: Introduction to Health Technology Assessment. Bethesda: National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology (NICHSR); 2004. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  14. Hailey D. Health technology assessment. Singapore Med J 2006; 47(3): 187-193. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  15. Hillman BJ. The changing face of health technology assessment. J Am Coll Radiol 2009; 6(5): 289. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  16. Nita ME, Secoli SR, Nobre M, Ono-Nita SK. Metodos de pesquisa em avaliacao de tecnologia em saude. Arq Gastroenterol. 2009; 46(4): 252-255. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  17. O'Reilly D, Campbell K, Goeree R. Basics of health technology assessment. Methods Mol Biol 2009; 473: 263-283. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  18. Papatheofanis FJ. Health technology assessment. Q J Nucl Med 2000; 44(2): 105-111. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  19. Vallejos C, Bustos L, de la Puente C, Reveco R, Velásquez M, Zaror C. Principales aspectos metodologicos en la Evaluacion de Tecnologias Sanitarias. Rev Med Chil 2014;142(Suppl 1): 16-21. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  20. Velasco Garrido M, Busse R. Health technology assessment: An introduction to objectives, role of evidence, and structure in Europe. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  21. Wild C, Gartlehner G. Health Technology Assessment: Die Bewertung medizinischer Interventionen. Wien Med Wochenschr 2008; 158(17-18): 522-9. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  22. Wulsin L, Dougherty A. A briefing on Health Technology Assessment. Sacramento: California Research Bureau; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 1754

Glossaries

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-05-20

This division presents a selection of glossaries on Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  • EUnetHTA Adaptation Glossary

Responsibility: European network for Health Technology Assessment

  1. Chase D, Rosten C, Turner S, Hicks N, Milne R. Development of a toolkit and glossary to aid in the adaptation of health technology assessment (HTA) reports for use in different contexts. Health Technol Assess. 2009; 13(59): 1-142. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Rosten C, Chase DL, Hicks NJ, Milne R; European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). Enhancing understanding: the development of a glossary of health technology assessment adaptation terms. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009; 25 Suppl 2: 42-7. [Further reference details] [Full text]

[EUnetHTA Adaptation Glossary – search online] [EUnetHTA Adaptation Glossary – download pdf]

 

  •  HTAi consumer and patient glossary (A beginner’s guide to words used in health technology assessment)

Responsibility: Health Technology Assessment international

[HTAi consumer and patient glossary – download pdf]

 

  • HTA glossary.net

Responsibility: INAHTA, HTAi and others

[HTA glossary.net – search online]

 

  • INAHTA Health Technology Assessment glossary

Responsibility: International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment

[INAHTA Health Technology Assessment glossary – search online]

 

  • NICHSR HTA 101 glossary

Responsibility:National Information Center on Health Services Research and Health Care Technology, National Library of Medicine

[NICHSR HTA 101 glossary – search online]

 

  • SWISSHTA glossary

Responsibility: Swiss Medical Association (FMH), Interpharma, Institute for Innovation and Valuation in Health Care (InnoVal), Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (SAMW), santésuisse.

[SWISSHTA glossary – search online]

Total votes: 1823

HTA domains

Total votes: 1845

HTA Guides

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-05-20

This division presents a selection of guidance publications and handbooks on Health Technology Assessment (HTA). For further context specific guidance publications please visit the division "Domains in HTA".

  1. Agency for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for conducting Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Warsaw: AHTAPol; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Cicchetti A, Marchetti M. Manuale di health technology assessment. Roma: Pensiero scientifico; 2010. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  3. Corio M , Paone S , Ferroni E , Meier H , Jefferson T, Cerbo M. Systematic review of the methodological instruments used in Health Technology Assessment. Rome: Agenas; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  4. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model® for Medical and Surgical Interventions v. 1.0r. Helsinki: Finohta; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  5. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model® for Diagnostic Technologies v. 1.0r. Helsinki: Finohta; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  6. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model for screening technologies: Version 1.0. Helsinki: Finohta; 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  7. Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for Evaluating the Clinical Effectiveness of Health Technologies in Ireland. Dublin: HIQA; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program. Health Technology Assessment process guidelines. Nonthaburi: HITAP; 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  9. Hermosilla Gago T, Grupo de Expertos de las Agencias de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de España. Manual para adaptar informes de evaluacion de tecnologías sanitarias a los ciudadanos: Guidelines to produce citizen-friendly Health Technology Assessment reports. Sevilla: Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias de Andalucía (AETSA); 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  10. Kristensen FB, Sigmund H (ed). Health Technology Assessment Handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA), National Board of Health; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  11. Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment. Methodenhandbuch für Health Technology Assessment Version 1.2012. Wien: Gesundheit Österreich GmbH; 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  12. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  13. Pan American Health Organization. Developing Health Technology Assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: PAHO; 1998. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  14. Panerai RB, Peña Mohr J. Health Technology Assessment methodologies for developing countries. Washington, DC: PAHO; 1989. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  15. Perleth M, Busse R, Gerhardus A, Gibis B, Lühmann D (ed). Health Technology Assessment: Konzepte, Methoden, Praxis für Wissenschaft und Entscheidungsfindung. Berlin: MWV, 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  16. Raad voor Gezondheidsonderzoek. Medical technology assessment: Deel 1. Inventarisatie van MTA-onderzoek en een aanzet tot coördinatie. Den Haag: RGO, 1998. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  17. Radlberger P, Zechmeister I. IFEDH: Innovative Framework for Evidence based Decision making in Health care. Principles of standardised work in HTA (WP1.2). Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health Technology Assessment (LBI-HTA); 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  18. Ricciardi W, La Torre G. Health technology Assessment: Principi, dimensioni e strumenti. Torino: SEEd; 2010. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  19. Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering. Utvärdering av metoder i hälso- och sjukvården: En handbok. Stockholm: SBU; 2013. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  20. World Health Organization. Health technology Assessment of medical devices. Geneva: WHO 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 1847

HTA implementation

<2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of resources HTA implementation
Total votes: 1891

Dissemination of HTA reports

Total votes: 1579

HTA in context

<2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of resources in the followng categories

Total votes: 1847

HTA Networks

Total votes: 1816

HTA and its relatives

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-05-24

Around Health Technology Assessment there does exist a multitude of related disciplines, products, procedures etc. This sub-division presents selected methodological publications on these relatives and their differences as well as commonalitiies to Health Technology Assessment. It is divided in

Total votes: 1730

HTA and related disciplines (e.g. Evidence-based Medicine)

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-03

This sub-division presents selected publications on the differences and commonalities of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and Evidence-based Medicine (EbM):

  1. Abalos E, Carroli G, Mackey ME. The tools and techniques of evidence-based medicine. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 19(1): 15-26. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Eddy D. Health technology assessment and evidence-based medicine: What are we talking about? Value Health 2009; 12(Suppl 2): S6-7. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  3. Kelly MP, Moore TA. The judgement process in evidence-based medicine and health technology assessment. Soc Theory Health 2012; 10(1): 1-19. [Further reference details] [Full text] 

  4. Lambert H. Accounting for EBM: Notions of evidence in medicine. Soc Sci Med 2006; 62(11): 2633-2645.[Further reference details] [Full text] 

  5. Luce BR, Drummond M, Jönsson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, et al. EBM, HTA, and CER: Clearing the confusion. Milbank Q 2010; 88(2): 256-276. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  6. Manchikanti L. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part I. Introduction and general considerations. Pain Physician 2008; 11(2): 161-186. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  7. O'Donnell JC, Pham SV, Pashos CL, Miller DW, Smith MD. Health technology assessment: Lessons learned from around the world: An overview. Value Health 2009; 12(Suppl 2): S1-S5. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Pinson N, Thielke A, King V. Health Technology Assessment. Portland: Center for Evidence-based Policy; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  9. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996; 312(7023): 71-72. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  10. Sauerland S. Die kritische Rolle wissenschaftlicher Evidenz im Rahmen von Health Technology Assessment. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2006; 49(3): 251-256. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  11. Smith R, Rennie D. Evidence-based medicine: An oral history. JAMA 2014; 311(4): 365-367. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 1797

HTA and related assessment procedures (e.g. comparative effectiveness research, CER)

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-07

This sub-division presents a selection of publications on HTA-related assessment processes. Some of these related methods are part of HTA. Related assessment processes are for example:

  • Comparative effectiveness research,
  • Constructive Technology Assessment,
  • Parliamentary Technology Assessment,
  • Participatory Technology Assessment.

Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER)

  1. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), Joint Action WP5. HTA Core Model® for Rapid Relative Effectiveness Assessment of Pharmaceuticals. Brussels: EUnetHTA; 2013. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Falissard B, Izard V, Xerri B, Bouvenot G, Meyer F, Degos L. Relative effectiveness assessment of listed drugs (REAL): A new method for an early comparison of the effectiveness of approved health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010; 26(1): 124-130. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  3. Hao Y, Thomas A. Health technology assessment and comparative effectiveness research: A pharmaceutical industry perspective. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2013; 13(4): 447-54. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  4. Kleijnen S, George E, Goulden S, d'Andon A, Vitré P, Osińska B, et al. Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: Similarities and differences in 29 jurisdictions. Value Health 2012; 15(6): 954-960. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  5. Kleijnen S, Goettsch W, d’Andon A, Vitre P, George E, Goulden S, et al. EUnetHTA JA WP5: Relative Effectiveness Assessment (REA) of Pharmaceuticals: Background review. Version 5B. Brussels: EUnetHTA; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  6. Luce BR, Drummond M, Jönsson B, Neumann PJ, Schwartz JS, Siebert U, et al. EBM, HTA, and CER: Clearing the confusion. Milbank Q 2010; 88(2): 256-276. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  7. Manchikanti L, Falco FJ, Boswell MV, Hirsch JA. Facts, fallacies, and politics of comparative effectiveness research: Part I. Basic considerations. Pain Physician 2010; 13(1): E23-E54. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Manchikanti L, Falco FJ, Boswell MV, Hirsch JA. Facts, fallacies, and politics of comparative effectiveness research: Part 2 - implications for interventional pain management. Pain Physician. 2010 Jan;13(1):E55-E79. [Further reference details] [Full text]

Constructive Technology Assessment

  1. Douma KF, Karsenberg K, Hummel MJ, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, van Harten WH. Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23(2): 162-168. [Further reference details] [Full text]

Parliamentary Technology Assessment

  1. European Parliamentary Technology Assessment. Parliamentary Technology Assessment in Europe: An overview of 17 institutions and how they work. EPTA; 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Simonis G (ed). Konzepte und Verfahren der Technikfolgenabschätzung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS; 2013. [Further reference details] [Full text]

Participatory Technology Assessment

  1. Decker M (ed). Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment: Implementation and its chances and limits. Berlin: Springer; 2001. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Guston DH. Participating despite questions: Toward a more confident Participatory Technology Assessment. Sci Eng Ethics 2011; 17(4): 691-697. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  3. Hansen J. Operationalising the public in participatory technology assessment: A framework for comparison applied to three cases. Sci Public Policy 2006; 33(8): 571-584 . [Further reference details] [Full text]

  4. Hennen L. Why do we still need participatory technology assessment? Poiesis Prax 2012; 9(1-2): 27-41. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  5. Ornetzeder M, Kastenhofer K. Old problems, new directions and upcoming requirements in participatory technology assessment. Poiesis Prax 2012; 9(1-2): 1-5. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  6. Menon D, Stafinski T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011; 11(1): 75-89. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  7. Saretzki T. Legitimation problems of participatory processes in technology assessment and technology policy. Poiesis Prax 2012; 9(1-2): 7-26. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, Gartlehner G, Lohr KN, Griffith D, et al. Community-Based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2004. [Further reference details] [Full text
Total votes: 1904

HTA and related products (e.g. Cochrane Reviews)

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-04

Besides the multitude of existing HTA products a multitude of related products does exist too. Based on the philosophies of different disciplines or specialties, contexts, purposes, institutional aims etc. the diverse related products were developped. These are for example:

  • Cochrane reviews, Campbell reviews, JBI reviews,
  • Systematic reviews,
  • Clinical practice guidelines.

This sub-division presents selected publications on these related products, and on their commonalities and differences to HTA reports:

  1. Antes G. Die Evidenz-Basis von klinischen Leitlinien, Health Technology Assessments und Patienteninformation als Grundlage für Entscheidungen in der Medizin. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2004; 98(3): 180-4; discussion 190-2, 214-5. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Armstrong R, Waters E, Jackson N, Oliver S, Popay J, Shepherd J, et al. Guidelines for systematic reviews of health promotion and public health interventions: Version 2. Melbourne: University; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  3. Chandler J, Hopewell S. Cochrane methods: Twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods. Syst Rev 2013; 2: 76. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  4. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. Systematic Reviews. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: CRD: 2009. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  5. Connis RT, Nickinovich DG, Caplan RA, Arens JF. The development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: Integrating medical science and practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(4): 1003-1012. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  6. Cook DJ, Greengold NL, Ellrodt AG, Weingarten SR. The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127(3): 210-6. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  7. Davies P, Boruch R. The Campbell Collaboration: Does for public policy what Cochrane does for health. BMJ 2001; 323(7308): 294-5. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Fox DM. Increasing effective policy and practice: Challenges in applying the findings of Cochrane reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy 2013; 18(1): 3-4. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  9. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 28. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  10. Higgins JPT, Green S (ed). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  11. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, Moher D. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998; 280(3): 278-280. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  12. Jamtvedt G. Systematiske oversikter om effekt av tiltak. Norsk Epidemiologi 2013; 23(2): 119-124. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  13. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Reviewers’ Manual. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide; 2014. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  14. Mallett S, Clarke M. The typical Cochrane review: How many trials? How many participants? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18(4): 820-823. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  15. Manchikanti L. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part I. Introduction and general considerations. Pain Physician 2008; 11(2): 161-186. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  16. Moat KA, Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Røttingen JA, Bärnighausen T. Twelve myths about systematic reviews for health system policymaking rebutted. J Health Serv Res Policy 2013; 18(1): 44-50. [Further reference details] [Full text

  17. Nordic Campbell Center. How to make a Campbell Collaboration Review: The Review. Copenhagen: NC2; no year. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  18. Perleth M, Jakubowski E, Busse R. „Best Practice“ im Gesundheitswesen: Oder warum wir evidenzbasierte Medizin, Leitlinien und Health Technology Assessment brauchen. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2000; 94(9): 741-744. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  19. Rotstein D, Laupacis A. Differences between systematic reviews and health technology assessments: A trade-off between the ideals of scientific rigor and the realities of policy making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(2): 177-183. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  20. Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, Pham B, Tugwell P. A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof 2002; 25(1): 116-129. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  21. Shemilt I, Mugford M, Drummond M, Eisenstein E, Mallender J, McDaid D, et al. Economics methods in Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health related interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 55. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 1885

HTA in practice

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-02

This sub-division presents a selection of publications on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) in practice:

  1. Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003; 63(2): 121-132. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Banta D. Health technology assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 253-254. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  3. Banta D, Oortwijn W. Health technology assessment and health care in the European Union. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(2): 626-635. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  4. Blume SS. Assessing health technologies in a changing world. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 276-280. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  5. Buskens E. “Medical technology assessment”: Er is meer dan alleen werkzaamheid. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2000; 144(13): 622-626. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  6. Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M, Perleth M, Drummond M, Gürtner F, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments: Working group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18(2): 361-422. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  7. Cookson R,  Maynard A. Health technology assessment in Europe: Improving clarity and performance. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(2): 639-650. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Draborg E, Andersen CK. Recommendations in health technology assessments worldwide. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006; 22(2): 155-160. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  9. Draborg E, Andersen CK. What influences the choice of assessment methods in health technology assessments? Statistical analysis of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006; 22(1): 19-25. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  10. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D. Time-trends in health technology assessments: An analysis of developments in composition of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(4): 492-498. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  11. Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(1): 89-95. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  12. García-Altés A, Ondategui-Parra S, Neumann PJ. Cross-national comparison of technology assessment processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(3): 300-310. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  13. Giovagnoni A, Bartolucci L, Manna A, Morbiducci J, Ascoli G. Health technology assessment: Principles, methods and current status. Radiol Med 2009; 114(5): 673-691. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  14. Goodman CS. Healthcare technology assessment: Methods, framework, and role in policy making. Am J Manag Care 1998; 4(Spec No):  SP200-SP215. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  15. Goodman CS., Ahn R. Methodological approaches of health technology assessment. Int J Med Inform 1999; 56(1-3): 97-105. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  16. International Working Group for HTA Advancement, Neumann PJ, Drummond MF, Jönsson B, Luce BR, Schwartz JS, et al. Are key principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010; 26(1): 71-78. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  17. Kristensen FB. Health technology assessment in Europe. Scand J Public Health 2009; 37(4): 335-339. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  18. Kuhn-Barrientos L. Evaluacion de Tecnologias Sanitarias: Marco conceptual y perspectiva global. Rev Med Chil 2014; 142 (Suppl 1): 11-15. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  19. Lange M, Jørgensen T, Kristensen FB, Stilvén S. The concept of health technology assessment: Views of applicants to funding of HTA projects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(4): 1201-1209. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  20. Martelli F, La Torre G, Di Ghionno E, Staniscia T, Neroni M, Cicchetti A, et al. Health technology assessment agencies: An international overview of organizational aspects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23(4): 414-424. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  21. Neumann PJ. Lessons for health technology assessment: It is not only about the evidence. Value Health 2009; 12(Suppl 2): S45-S48. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  22. Oortwijn W, Broos P, Vondeling H, Banta D, Todorova L. Mapping of health technology assessment in selected countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013; 29(4): 424-434. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  23. Perry S, Gardner E, Thamer M. The status of health technology assessment worldwide: Results of an international survey. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1997; 13(1): 81-98. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  24. Poulsen PB, Hørder M. Medicinsk teknologivurdering i praksis. Ugeskr Laeger 1998; 24; 160(35): 5041-5044. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  25. Rettig RA. Health care in transition: Technology assessment in the private sector. Santa Monica: RAND; 1997. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  26. Sivalal S. Health technology assessment in the Asia Pacific region. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl S1): 196–201. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  27. Stephens JM, Handke B, Doshi JA. International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): Does practice meet the principles proposed for good research? Comparative Effectiveness Research 2012; 2: 29–44. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  28. Stevens A, Milne R, Burls A. Health technology assessment: History and demand. J Public Health Med 2003; 25(2): 98-101. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  29. Tantivess S. Policy making and roles of health technology assessment. J Med Assoc Thai 2008; 91(Suppl 2): S88-S99. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  30. Velasco Garrido M, Busse R. Health technology assessment: An introduction to objectives, role of evidence, and structure in Europe. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  31. Velasco Garrido M, Kristensen FB, Palmhøj Nielsen C, Busse R. Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe: Current status, challenges and potential. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, The European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 1544

HTA products

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-05-24

A multitude of HTA products does exist. This sub-didvision presents selected publications on the different types of products, regarding their

  • comprehensiveness
  • relation to the life cycle status of the technology
  • context / setting.
Total votes: 1654

The history of HTA

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-05-24

This sub-division presents selected publications on the history of HTA. Additionally there does exist a huge amount of publications on the history and the current practice of HTA in specific countries or regions. Please, visit the country of interest in the vortal section "HTA agencies and networks" to read the information.

  1. Banta HD. Health care technology and its assessment in eight countries. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress: 1995. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  2. Banta HD. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003; 63(2): 121-32. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  3. Banta HD, Jonsson E. History of HTA: Introduction. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25 (Suppl 1): 1-6. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  4. Banta D, Kristensen FB, Jonsson E. A history of health technology assessment at the European level. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 68-73. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  5. Banta HD, Luce BR. Health care technology and its assessment: An international perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  6. Banta HD, Perry S. A history of ISTAHC: A personal perspective on its first 10 years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1997; 13(3): 430-453. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  7. Battista RN, Hodge MJ. The "natural history" of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25 (Suppl 1): 281-284. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. An international inventory of health care technology assessment reports and projects. Ottawa: CCOHTA; 1992. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  9. Eisenberg JM, Zarin D. Health technology assessment in the United States. Past, present, and future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18(2): 192-8. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  10. Jonsson E. Development of health technology assessment in Europe: A personal perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18(2): 171-183. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  11. Liberati A, Sheldon TA, Banta HD. EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup report on Methodology: Methodological guidance for the conduct of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1997; 13(2): 186-219. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  12. Luce B, Singer Cohen R. Health technology assessment in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 33-41. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  13. Oliver A, Mossialos E, Robinson R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(1): 1-10. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  14. Poulsen PB. An international comparison of health technology assessment. Odense: Centre for Health and Social Policy, Odense University; 1997. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  15. Shemer J, Shani M, Tamir O, Siebzehner MI. Health technology management in Israel: HTA in action. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 134-139. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  16. Sivalal S. History of health technology assessment: A commentary. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 1): 285-7. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  17. Sorenson C, Chalkidou K. Reflections on the evolution of health technology assessment in Europe. Health Econ Policy Law 2012; 7(1): 25-45. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  18. Stevens A, Milne R, Burls A. Health technology assessment: History and demand. J Public Health Med 2003; 25(2): 98-101. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 1643

Tools

Total votes: 1859

Domains of HTA

<2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for each of the HTA Core model (r) domains

<a href="http://meka.thl.fi/htacore/ViewHandbook.aspx#guidance">Read more about the HTA Core Model</a>

Total votes: 1950

Health problem and current use of technology

<2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for Health problem and current use of technology
Total votes: 1931

Description and technical characteristics of technology

<2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for Description and technical characteristics of technology
Total votes: 1727

Safety

<2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for Safety
Total votes: 1719

Diagnostic accuracy

Total votes: 1854

Screening tests

Total votes: 1727

Clinical effectiveness

<2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for Clinical effectiveness
Total votes: 1860

Costs and economic evaluation

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-23

This division presents a selection of methodological publications on costs and economic evaluation in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). These are publications on:

Total votes: 2003

Addressing / integrating economic evaluations in HTA

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-23

This sub-division presents a selection of publications on addressing economic evaluations as well as conceptual contributions on economic evaluations and Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  1. Anderson R. Systematic reviews of economic evaluations: Utility or futility? Health Econ 2010; 19(3): 350-364. [Further reference details] [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Barbieri M, Drummond M. Conflict of interest in industry-sponsored economic evaluations: Real or imagined? Curr Oncol Rep 2001;3:410–413. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Bridges JF. What can economics add to health technology assessment? Please not just another cost-effectiveness analysis! Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2006; 6(1): 19-24. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Brousselle A, Lessard C. Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making: Promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path. Soc Sci Med 2011; 72(6): 832-839. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Culyer AJ. Hic sunt dracones: The future of health technology assessment. One economist's perspective. Med Decis Making 2012; 32(1): E25-E32. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. Ellemann-Jensen P. Sundhedsøkonomiske aspekter af medicinsk teknologivurdering. Odense: Det samfundsfaglige fakultet, Odense Universitet; 1992. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  8. Evers S, Goossens M, de Vet H, van Tulder M, Ament A. Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(2): 240-245. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  9. Goeree R, He J, O'Reilly D, Tarride JE, Xie F, Lim M, Burke N. Transferability of health technology assessments and economic evaluations: A systematic review of approaches for assessment and application. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2011; 3: 89-104. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  10. Hutton J. 'Health Economics' and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies. Health Econ 2012; 21(1): 13-8. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  11. Kirisits A, Redekop WK. The economic evaluation of medical devices: Challenges ahead. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2013; 11(1): 15-26. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  12. Lettieri E, Masella C. Spesa sanitaria e valutazione delle tecnologie sanitarie. G Ital Nefrol. 2007; 24 (Suppl 40): s22-s36. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  13. Mathes T, Jacobs E, Morfeld JC, Pieper D. Methods of international health technology assessment agencies for economic evaluations: A comparative analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 2013; 13: 371. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  14. Mathes T, Walgenbach M, Antoine SL, Pieper D, Eikermann M. Methods for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: A systematic review, comparison, and synthesis of method literature. Med Decis Making 2014 Apr 8. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  15. Menon D. The science of health technology assessment: The economic perspective. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 8 (Suppl A): 17A-20A. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  16. Rotter JS, Foerster D, Bridges JF. The changing role of economic evaluation in valuing medical technologies. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2012; 12(6): 711-23. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  17. Rutten, F. Health technology assessment and policy from the economic perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(1): 67-70. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  18. Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, Drummond MF, Golder S, Urdahl H, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: A review and case studies. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8(49): 1-192. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  19. Simoens S. Health technology assessment and economic evaluation across jurisdictions. Value Health 2010; 13(6): 857-859. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  20. Stahl JE. Modelling methods for pharmacoeconomics and health technology assessment: An overview and guide. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26(2): 131-148. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  21. Tarride JE, Blackhouse G, Bischof M, McCarron EC, Lim M, Ferrusi IL, et al. Approaches for economic evaluations of health care technologies. J Am Coll Radiol 2009; 6(5): 307-316. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  22. Vale L. Health technology assessment and economic evaluation: Arguments for a national approach. Value Health 2010; 13(6): 859-861. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2039

Guidance publications / Handbooks

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-21

This sub-division presents a selection of guidance publications on economic evaluation in Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  1. Augustovski F, Garay OU, Pichon-Riviere A, Rubinstein A, Caporale JE. Economic evaluation guidelines in Latin America: A current snapshot. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2010; 10(5): 525-537. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. Ottawa: CADTH; 2006. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Cleemput I, Neyt M, Van de Sande S, Nancy T. Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model® for Medical and Surgical Interventions v. 1.0r. Helsinki: Finohta; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model® for Diagnostic Technologies v. 1.0r. Helsinki: Finohta; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model for screening technologies: Version 1.0. Helsinki: Finohta; 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]
  7. Haute Autorité de santé. Choices in methods for economic evaluation: A methodological guide. Paris: HAS; 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  8. Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in Ireland. Dublin: HIQA; 2014. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  9. Kristensen FB, Sigmund H (ed). Health Technology Assessment Handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA), National Board of Health; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  10. Mittmann N, Evans WK, Rocchi A, Longo CJ, Au HJ, Husereau D, et al. Addendum to CADTH’s guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Specific guidance for oncology products. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  11. Larsen RJ, Asmussen M, Christensen T, Olsen J, Poulsen PB, Sørensen J. Economic evaluations in international health technology assessments: A study of methodologies. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA), National Board of Health; 2003. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  12. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: a review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24(4): 355-371. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  13. Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering. Hälsoekonomiska utvärderingar. In: Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering. Utvärdering av metoder i hälso- och sjukvården: En handbok. Stockholm: SBU; 2012: 137-154. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 1859

Methods approaches

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-23

This sub-division presents a selection of publications on different methods approaches to economic evaluations in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). These most commonly used methods approaches are:

Total votes: 1993

Cost-analysis

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-07-12

This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on cost-analysis and Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  1. Balas EA, Kretschmer RA, Gnann W, West DA, Boren SA, Centor RM, et al. Interpreting cost analyses of clinical interventions. JAMA 1998; 279(1): 54-57. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Briggs A. Economic evaluation and clinical trials: Size matters. The need for greater power in cost analyses poses an ethical dilemma. BMJ 2000; 321(7273): 1362-1363. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Briggs A, Clark T, Wolstenholme J, Clarke P. Missing....presumed at random: Cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ 2003; 12(5): 377-392. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Brosnan C, Swint JM. Cost analysis: Concepts and application. Public Health Nurs 2001; 18(1): 13-18. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Chang WY, Henry BM. Methodologic principles of cost analyses in the nursing, medical, and health services literature, 1990-1996. Nursing Research 1999; 48(2): 94-104. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. Doshi JA, Glick HA, Polsky D. Analyses of cost data in economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized controlled trials. Value Health 2006; 9(5): 334-340. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. Evans C, Mertzanis P, Abetz L. Measurement strategies for indirect costs in economic evaluations. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2003; 3(6): 703-716. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  8. Huang Y. Cost analysis with censored data. Med Care 2009; 47(7 Suppl 1): S115-S119. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  9. Jacobs P, Fassbender K. The measurement of indirect costs in the health economic evaluation literature: A review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1998; 14(4): 799-808. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  10. Jakubczyk M, Wrona W, Macioch T, Golicki D, Niewada M, Hermanowski T. Koszty posrednie w ocenie technologii medycznych. Pol Merkur Lekarski 2010; 28(163): 42-45. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  11. Liljas B. How to calculate indirect costs in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13(1 Pt 1): 1-7. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  12. Platis H, Liaropoulos L. Comparative cost analysis of two different medical interventions: educational implications. Stud Health Technol Inform 1998; 51: 50-64. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  13. Walker D, Kumaranayake L. Allowing for differential timing in cost analyses: discounting and annualization. Health Policy Plan 2002; 17(1): 112-118. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  14. Wijeysundera HC, Wang X, Tomlinson G, Ko DT, Krahn MD. Techniques for estimating health care costs with censored data: An overview for the health services researcher. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2012; 4: 145-155. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  15. Zhao FL, Xie F, Hu H, Li SC. Transferability of indirect cost of chronic disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2013; 31(6): 501-508. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2158

Cost-benefit analysis

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-07-04

This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on cost-benefit analysis and Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  1. Brent RJ. Cost-benefit analysis and health care evaluation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2004. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Cost-benefit analysis identifies best practices. Healthc Benchmarks 1997; 4(8): 111-113. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Islam SMN, Yee Mak CS.  Normative health economics: A new pragmatic approach to cost benefit analysis, mathematical models and applications. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2006. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Kristiansen IS, Stavem K, Linnestad K, Pedersen KM. Evaluering av medisinske metoder: Kan vi stole pa kostnad-effekt-analyser? Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2003; 123(5): 657-660. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Layard R, Glaister S. Cost-benefit analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. McIntosh E. Using discrete choice experiments within a cost-benefit analysis framework: Some considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24(9): 855-868. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. McIntosh E, Clarke PM, Frew EJ, Louviere JJ. (ed). Applied methods of cost-benefit analysis in Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  8. Sloan FA, Hsieh CR [ed]. Pharmaceutical innovation: Incentives, competition, and cost-benefit analysis in international perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  9. Udvarhelyi IS, Colditz GA, Rai A, Epstein AM. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in the medical literature: Are the methods being used correctly? Ann Intern Med 1992; 116(3): 238-244. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  10. Zarnke KB, Levine MA, O'Brien BJ. Cost-benefit analyses in the health-care literature: Don't judge a study by its label. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50(7): 813-822. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 1922

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-30

This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  1. Adam T, Koopmanschap MA, Evans DB. Cost-effectiveness analysis: Can we reduce variability in costing methods? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19: 407-420. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. An introduction to the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis. Drug Ther Bull 2012; 50(7): 81-84. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Adang E, Voordijk L, van der Wilt JG, Ament A. Cost-effectiveness analysis in relation to budgetary constraints and reallocative restrictions. Health Policy 2005; 74(2): 146-156. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Baltussen R, Brouwer W, Niessen L. Cost-effectiveness analysis for priority setting in health: Penny-wise but pound-foolish. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(4): 532-534. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Baltussen RM, Hutubessy RC, Evans DB, Murray CJ. Uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis: Probabilistic uncertainty analysis and stochastic league tables. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18: 112-119. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. Berchialla P, Gregori D, Brunello F, Veltri A, Petrinco M, Pagano E. L'approccio bayesiano all'analisi di costo-efficacia degli interventi sanitari. Epidemiol Prev 2009; 33(3): 123-128. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. Dakin H, Wordsworth S. Cost-minimisation analysis versus cost-effectiveness analysis: Revisited. Health Economics 2013; 22: 22-34. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  8. Eckermann S, Briggs A, Willan AR. Health technology assessment in the cost-disutility plane. Med Decis Making 2008; 28(2): 172-181. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  9. Espinoza MA, Manca A, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. The value of heterogeneity for cost-effectiveness subgroup analysis: Conceptual framework and application. Med Decis Making 2014; Jun 18. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  10. Gray AM. Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  11. Hernández MA, Vázquez-Polo FJ, González-Torre FJ, Bas EM. Complementing the net benefit approach: A new framework for Bayesian cost-effectiveness analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(4): 537-545. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  12. Jena AB, Philipson TJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis and innovation. J Health Econ 2008; 27(5): 1224-1236. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  13. Johri M, Norheim OF. Can cost-effectiveness analysis integrate concerns for equity? Systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012; 28(2): 125-132. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  14. Kaltenthaler E, Tappenden P, Paisley S. Reviewing the evidence to inform the population of cost-effectiveness models within health technology assessments. Value Health 2013; 16(5): 830-836. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  15. Kruse M, Sørensen J, Gyrd-Hansen D. Future costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: An empirical assessment. Eur J Health Econ 2012; 13(1): 63-70. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  16. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: The importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Economics 2005; 14: 487-496. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  17. Moreno E, Girón FJ, Vázquez-Polo FJ, Negrín MA. A Bayesian net benefit approach to cost-effectiveness analysis in health technology assessment . Int J Econ Bus 2009; 16(3): 323-345. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  18. Neumann PJ. Using cost-effectiveness analysis to improve health care: Opportunities and barriers. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  19. Noble SM, Hollingworth W, Tilling K. Missing data in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: The current state of play. Health Econ 2012; 21(2): 187-200. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  20. Rosén M. Who should conduct modeling and cost-effectiveness analysis? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014; 30(1): 128-129. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  21. Sculpher M. Subgroups and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness analysis. PharmacoEconomics 2008; 26: 799-806. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  22. Secoli SR, Nita ME, Ono-Nita SK, Nobre M. Avaliacao de tecnologia em saude: II. A analise de custo-efetividade. Arq Gastroenterol 2010; 47(4): 329-333. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  23. Sendi P, Al MJ. Revisiting the decision rule of cost-effectiveness analysis under certainty and uncertainty. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57(6): 969-974. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  24. Tan-Torres Edejer T, Baltussen R, Adam T, Hutubessy R, Acharya A, Evans DB, et al. WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO); 2003. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  25. Van de Wetering G, Woertman WH, Adang EM. Time to incorporate time in cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur J Health Econ 2012; 13(3): 223-226. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  26. Zaric GS. The impact of ignoring population heterogeneity when Markov models are used in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 2003; 23(5): 379-396. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  27. Zivin JG. Cost-effectiveness analysis with risk aversion. Health Economics 2001; 10: 499-508. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 1902

Cost-minimization analysis (CMA)

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-07-04

This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on cost-minimization analysis and Health Technology assessment (HTA):

  1. Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ 2001; 10(2): 179-184. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Dakin H, Wordsworth S. Cost-minimisation analysis versus cost-effectiveness analysis: Revisited. Health Econ 2013; 22(1): 22-34.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Haycox A. What is cost-minimization analysis? In: Arnold RJG [ed]. Pharmacoeconomics: From theory to practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2010: 83-94.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Jones KR. Economic decision making: Cost minimization analysis. Semin Nurse Manag 2001; 9(2): 73-74.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Newby D, Hill S. Use of pharmacoeconomics in prescribing research: Part 2. Cost-minimization analysis. When are two therapies equal? J Clin Pharm Ther 2003; 28(2): 145-150.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. Rascati KL. Essentials of pharmacoeconomics. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2009. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. Robinson R. Costs and cost-minimisation analysis. BMJ 1993; 307(6906): 726-728.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2040

Cost-outcome analysis

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-07-26

This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on cost-outcome analysis and Health Technology Assessment (HTA):

  1. Ellwein LB, Drummond MF. Economic analysis alongside clinical trial: Bias in the assessment of economic outcomes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996, 12(4): 691-697. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Hargreaves WA, Shumway M, Hu TW, Cuffel B. Cost-outcome methods for mental health. San Diego: Academic Press; 1998.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Kohli R, Tan JK, Piontek FA, Ziege DE, Groot H. Integrating cost information with health management support system: An enhanced methodology to assess health care quality drivers. Top Health Inf Manage 1999; 20(1): 80-95.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Oliver A. Accounting for the missing opportunity costs in incremental cost-outcome analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2002; 1(4): 191-196.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Rutten-van Mölken MP, van Doorslaer EK, van Vliet RC. Statistical analysis of cost outcomes in a randomized controlled clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3(5): 333–345.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2049

Cost-utility analysis (CUA)

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-07-02

This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on cost-utility-analysis (CUA) and Health Technoogy Assessment (HTA):

  1. Bell CM, Chapman RH, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, Neumann PJ. An off-the-shelf help list: A comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses. Med Decis Making 2001; 21(4): 288-294. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, Neumann PJ. Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health 2006; 9(4): 213-218. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. de Neeling JND. Cost-utility analysis. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands (GR); 2003. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximisation and people's preferences: A methodological review of the literature. Health Econ 2005; 14(2): 197-208. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Gezondheidsraad. Ethical aspects of cost-utility analysis: 4th Forum of National Ethics Councils in EU Countries, Amsterdam, 22 December 2004. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands (GR); 2005.[Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. Ginsberg GM. Generalizability of cost-utility analyses across countries and settings. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2013; 27(6): 845-852.[Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. Greenberg D, Pliskin JS. Preference-based outcome measures in cost-utility analyses: A 20-year overview. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18(3): 461-466.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  8. Greenberg D, Rosen AB, Olchanski NV, Stone PW, Nadai J, Neumann PJ. Delays in publication of cost utility analyses conducted alongside clinical trials: Registry analysis. BMJ 2004; 328(7455): 1536-1537. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  9. Lilford R, Girling A, Braunholtz D, Gillett W, Gordon J, Brown CA, et al. Cost-utility analysis when not everyone wants the treatment: Modeling split-choice bias. Med Decis Making 2007; 27(1): 21-26. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  10. McDonough CM, Tosteson AN. Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: How choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25(2): 93-106.  [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  11. Pickard AS, Wang Z, Walton SM, Lee TA. Are decisions using cost-utility analyses robust to choice of SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithm? Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005; 3: 11. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  12. Sonnad SS , Greenberg D , Rosen AB, Neumann PJ. Diffusion of published cost-utility analyses in the field of health policy and practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(3): 399-402. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  13. Stone PW, Chapman RH, Sandberg EA, Liljas B, Neumann PJ. Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses: Variations in the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16(1): 111-124. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  14. Tsuchiya A, Dolan P. The QALY model and individual preferences for health states and health profiles over time: A systematic review of the literature. Med Decis Making 2005; 25(4): 460-467. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 2104

Modeling

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-06-25

This sub-division presents methodological publications on modeling in Health Technollogy Assessment (HTA):

  1. Baltussen R, Niessen L. Priority setting of health interventions: The need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2006; 4: 14. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  2. Barton P, Bryan S, Robinson S. Modelling in the economic evaluation of health care: Selecting the appropriate approach. J Health Serv Res Policy 2004; 9: 110-118. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  3. Briggs A, Claxton K; Sculpher MJ. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  4. Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM; ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Modeling good research practices: Overview. A report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Med Decis Making 2012; 32(5): 667-677. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  5. Chilcott J, Tappenden P, Rawdin A, Johnson M, Kaltenthaler E, Paisley S, et al. Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: Qualitative study and methodological review. Health Technol Assess 2010; 14(25): 1-107. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  6. Craig D, McDaid C, Fonseca T, Stock C, Duffy S. Woolacott N. Are adverse effects incorporated in economic models? A survey of current practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010; 26(3): 323-329. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  7. Decision analytic modelling in the economic evaluation of health technologies: A consensus statement. Consensus conference on guidelines on economic modelling in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17(5): 443-444. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  8. Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD, et al. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 1. Getting started. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 123–125. [Further reference details] [Full text]
  9. Detsky AS, Naglie G, Krahn MD, Redelmeier DA, Naimark D. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 2. Building a tree. Med Decis Making 1997; 17(2): 126-35. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    Naglie G, Krahn MD, Naimark D, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 3. Estimating probabilities and utilities. Med Decis Making 1997; 17(2): 136-141. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    Krahn MD, Naglie G, Naimark D, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 4. Analyzing the model and interpreting the results. Med Decis Making 1997; 17(2): 142-151. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    Naimark D, Krahn MD, Naglie G, Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 5. Working with Markov processes. Med Decis Making 1997; 17(2): 152-159. [Further reference details] [Full text]

  10. Diaby V, Goeree R. How to use multi-criteria decision analysis methods for reimbursement decision-making in healthcare: A step-by-step guide. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2014; 14(1): 81-99. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  11. Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M, Briggs A. Improving the efficiency and relevance of health technology assessment: The role of iterative decision analytic modelling. York: Centre for Health Economics (CHE), University of York; 2000. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  12. Garattini L, Koleva D, Casadei G. Modeling in pharmacoeconomic studies: Funding sources and outcomes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010; 26(3): 330-333. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  13. Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) and efficient health care decision making with multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): Applying the EVIDEM framework to medicines appraisal. Med Decis Making 2012; 32(2): 376-388. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  14. Grigore B, Peters J, Hyde C, Stein K. Methods to elicit probability distributions from experts: A systematic review of reported practice in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2013; 31(11): 991-1003. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  15. Kim SY. Use of a decision-analytic model in a health technology assessment: Beyond measuring value for money. Isr J Health Policy Res 2013; 2(1): 15. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  16. Marsh K, Lanitis T, Neasham D, Orfanos P, Caro J. Assessing the value of healthcare interventions using multi-criteria decision analysis: A review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2014; 32(4): 345-65. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  17. Philips Z, Bojke L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: A review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24(4): 355-371. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  18. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004; 8: 1–158. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  19. Roberts M, Russell LB, Paltiel AD, Chambers M, McEwan P, Krahn M; et al. Conceptualizing a model: A report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-2. Value Health 2012; 15(6): 804-811. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  20. Thokala P, Duenas A. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment. Value Health 2012; 15(8): 1172-1181. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  21. Vemer P, van Voom GA, Ramos IC, Krabbe PF, Al MJ, Feenstra TL. Improving model validation in health technology assessment: Comments on guidelines of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force. Value Health 2013; 16(6): 1106-1107. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  22. Zechmeister-Koss I, Schnell-Inderst P, Zauner G. Appropriate evidence sources for populating decision analytic models within health technology assessment (HTA): A systematic review of HTA manuals and health economic guidelines. Med Decis Making 2014; 34(3): 288-299. [Further reference details] [Full text]
     
  23. Zechmeister‐Koss I. IFEDH: Innovative Framework for Evidence Based Decision making in Health care. Standards on how to parameterise models via published literature. Input of the LBI‐HTA (WP 4.2). Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut fuer Health Technology Assessment (LBIHTA); 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]
Total votes: 1947

Ethical analysis

Author(s): 
Last revised: 
2014-02-16

Ethics and HTA is represented by an HTAi / INAHTA Interest Sub-Group. Please feel free to visit the web page of the HTAi / INAHTA Interest Sub-Group on Ethical Issues in HTA.

Methodological publications on Information Retrieval and ethical issues in HTA are presented in the SuRe Info section "Ethical analysis" of the HTAi Vortal (web page under construction).

This division presents a selection of methodological publications on ethical implications and values of the use and assessment of health technologies - for individuals and the society. These are publications on:

  • Addressing / integrating ethical issues in HTA
  • Guidance publications / Handbooks
  • Methods approaches
  • Preparing systematic reviews on ethical issues in health technologies
  • Ethical regulations, codes, conventions etc.
  • Total votes: 1756

    Addressing / integrating ethical issues in HTA

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-02-20

    This sub-division presents publications on surveys addressing ethical issues in HTA as well as conceptual contributions on ethics and HTA:

    1. Arellano LE, Willett JM, Borry P. International survey on attitudes toward ethics in health technology assessment: An exploratory study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27(1): 50-54. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    2. Braunack-Mayer AJ. Ethics and health technology assessment: Handmaiden and/or critic? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006; 22(3): 307-312. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    3. Callahan D. Health technology assessment implementation: The politics of ethics. Med Decis Making. 2012; 32(1): E13-19. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    4. Decker M. The role of ethics in interdisciplinary technology assessment. Poiesis Prax 2004; 2(2-3): 139–156. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    5. DeJean D, Giacomini M, Schwartz L, Miller FA. Ethics in Canadian health technology assessment: A descriptive review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(4): 463-469. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    6. Droste S, Gerhardus A. Ethische Aspekte in Kurz-HTA-Berichten: Eine systematische Übersicht. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2003; 97(10): 711–715. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    7. Duthie K, Bond K. Improving ethics analysis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27(1): 64-70. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    8. Gallo P. Integrating ethical enquiry and health technology assessment: Limits and opportunities for efficiency and equity. Poiesis Prax 2004; 2(2-3): 103–117. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    9. Giacomini M, Winsor S, Abelson J. Ethics in health technology assessment: Understanding health technologies as policies. Healthc Manage Forum 2013; 26(2): 72-76. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    10. Goldenberg MJ. Evidence-based ethics? On evidence-based practice and the "empirical turn" from normative bioethics. BMC Med Ethics 2005; 6: E11. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    11. Gupta M. A critical appraisal of evidence-based medicine: Some ethical considerations. J Eval Clin Pract 2003; 9(2): 111-121. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    12. Hennen L. Biomedical and bioethical issues in Parliamentary TA and in Health Technology Assessment. Poiesis Prax 2004; 2(2-3): 207-220. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    13. Hofmann BM. Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24(4):423-429. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    14. Hofmann B. Why not integrate ethics in HTA: Identification and assessment of the reasons. GMS Health Technol Assess 2014; 10: Doc04. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    15. INAHTA Ethics Working Group. INAHTA’S Working Group on handling ethical issues: Final report. Melbourne: INAHTA; 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    16. Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23(1): 9-16. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    17. Ruggiero VR. Thinking critically about ethical issues. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    18. Sandman L, Heintz E. Assessment vs. appraisal of ethical aspects of health technology assessment: Can the distinction be upheld? GMS Health Technol Assess 2014; 10: Doc05. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    19. ten Have H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(1): 71-76. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    20. Van der Wilt GJ, Reuzel R, Banta HD. The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth 2000; 21(1): 103-115. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    21. Van der Wilt GJ. Health technology assessment: Trying to bring empirical and ethical inquiry together. Poiesis Prax 2004; 2(2-3): 195-206. [Further reference details] [Full text]
    Total votes: 2052

    Ethical regulations, codes, conventions etc.

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-02-22

    This sub-division presents a selection of publications on ethical regulations, codes and conventions relevant to HTA:

    1. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), World Health Organization (WHO). International ethical guidelines for epidemiological studies. Geneva: CIOMS; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    2. Council of Europe. Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, concerning Biomedical Research: Explanatory report. Paris: Council of Europe; 1997. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    3. Council of Europe. Additional protocol to the convention on human rights and biomedicine, concerning biomedical research. Strasbourg, 25.I.2005. Paris: Council of Europe; 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    4. Council of Europe. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on human rights and biomedicine. Oviedo, 4.4.1997. Paris: Council of Europe; 1997. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    5. Ehni HJ, Wiesing U. International ethical regulations on placebo-use in clinical trials: A comparative analysis. Bioethics 2008; 22(1): 64-74. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    6. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies {EGE). Statement of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies {EGE) on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC {COM 2012) 369 final. Bruxelles: European Commission. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    7. European Parliament. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Official Journal of the European Communities 2001; 1.5.2001: L 121/34-L 121/44. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    8. Health Professions Council of South Africa. General ethical guidelines for health researchers. Pretoria: HPCSA; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    9. Idänpään-Heikkilä JE, Fluss S. The CIOMS view on the use of placebo in clinical trials. Sci Eng Ethics 2004; 10(1): 23-28. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    10. Lo B, Field MJ (Ed). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington: National Academies Press; 2009. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    11. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Public health: ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    12. Snyder L; American College of Physicians Ethics, Professionalism, and Human Rights Committee. American College of Physicians Ethics Manual: Sixth edition. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156(1 Pt 2): 73-104. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    13. UK Screening Committee. Criteria for appraising the viability, effectiveness and appropriateness of a screening programme [online]. London: UK NSC. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    14. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2010; 1(1): 42–58. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    15. Wager E, Wiffen PJ. Ethical issues in preparing and publishing systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med 2011; 4(2): 130-4. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    16. World Health Organization. Standards and Operational Guidance for Ethics Review of Health-Related Research with Human Participants. Geneva: WHO; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    17. World Medical Association. Medical Ethics manual. Ferney-Voltaire: WMA; 2009. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    18. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013; 310(20): 2191-2194. [Further reference details] [Full text]
    Total votes: 2017

    Guidance publications / Handbooks

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-06-03

    This sub-division presents a selection of reports on ethical analysis in HTA or reports with chapters on this topic:

    1. Assasi N, Schwartz L, Tarride JE, Campbell K, Goeree R. Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: A systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2014; 14(2): 203-20. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    2. Droste S, Gerhardus A, Kollek R. Methoden zur Erfassung ethischer Aspekte und gesellschaftlicher Wertvorstellungen in Kurz-HTA-Berichten: Eine internationale Bestandsaufnahme. Cologne: Deutsche Agentur für Health Technology Assessment des Deutschen Instituts für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DAHTA@DIMDI); 2003. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    3. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model® for Medical and Surgical Interventions v. 1.0r. Helsinki: Finohta; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    4. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model® for Diagnostic Technologies v. 1.0r. Helsinki: Finohta; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    5. European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). HTA Core Model for screening technologies: Version 1.0. Helsinki: Finohta; 2012. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    6. Hausmann A, Blasco JA. Elaboración y validación de instrumentos metodológicos para la evaluación de productos de las agencias de evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias: Manual para la Evaluación Ética en la Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias. Madrid: Plan de Calidad para el SNS del MSC. Unidad de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias, Agencia Laín Entralgo; 2010. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    7. Haute Autorité de Santé. L’évaluation des aspects éthiques à la HAS. Guide methodologique. Paris: HAS; 2013. [Further reference details] [Full text

    8. Hofmann B. Etikk i vurdering av helsetiltak. Utvikling av en metode for å synliggjøre etiske utfordringer ved vurdering av helsetiltak. Oslo: Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten (NOKC); 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    9. Kristensen FB, Sigmund H (ed). Health Technology Assessment Handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA), National Board of Health; 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    10. Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering. Utvärdering av metoder i hälso- och sjukvården: En handbok. Stockholm: SBU; 2013. [Further reference details] [Full text]
    Total votes: 1592

    Methods approaches

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-02-09

    This sub-division presents a selection of publications on the following methods approaches on ethical analysis in HTA:

    • Casuistry
    • Eclectic approach
    • EUnetHTA Core Models
    • Participatory approach
    • Principles approach
    • Social shaping of technology
    • Socratic approach (= Axiological approach)
    • Triangular approach
    • Wide reflective equilibrium
    1. Autti-Rämö I, Mäkelä M. Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports: An eclectic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23: 1-8. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    2. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    3. Bombard Y, Abelson J, Simeonov D, Gauvin FP. Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach. Soc Sci Med 2011; 73: 135-144. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    4. Braunack-Mayer A. Casuistry as bioethical method: An empirical perspective. Soc Sci Med 2001; 53: 71-81. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    5. Burls A, Caron L, Cleret de Langavant G, Dondorp W, Harstall C, Pathak-Sen E, et al. Tackling ethical issues in health technology assessment: A proposed framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27: 230-237. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    6. Clausen C, Yoshinaka Y. Social shaping of technology in TA and HTA. Poiesis Prax 2004; 2: 221-246. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    7. Daniels N. Justice and justification: Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    8. Douma KF, Karsenberg K, Hummel MJ, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, van Harten WH. Methodology of constructive technology assessment in health care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23: 162-168. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    9. Hofmann B, Droste S, Oortwijn W, Cleemput I, Sacchini D. Harmonization of ethics in health technology assessment: A revision of the socratic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2014: 1-7. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    10. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21: 312-318. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    11. Hofmann B, Solbakk JH, Holm S. Teaching old dogs new tricks: The role of analogies in bioethical analysis and argumentation concerning new technologies. Theor Med Bioeth 2006; 27: 397-413. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    12. Kushner T, Belliotti RA, Buckner D. Toward a methodology for moral decision making in medicine. Theor Med 1991; 12: 281-293. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    13. Nichols P. Wide reflective equilibrium as a method of justification in bioethics. Theor Med Bioeth 2012; 33: 325-341. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    14. Reuzel R, Oortwijn W, Decker M, Clausen C, Gallo P, Grin J, et al. Ethics and HTA: Some lessons and challenges for the future. Poiesis Prax 2004; 2: 247-256. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    15. Reuzel RP, van der Wilt GJ, ten Have HA, de Vries Robbe PF. Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium. J Med Philos 2001; 26: 245-261. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    16. Saarni SI, Braunack-Mayer A, Hofmann B, van der Wilt GJ. Different methods for ethical analysis in health technology assessment: An empirical study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27: 305-312. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    17. Sacchini D, Virdis A, Refolo P, Pennacchini M, de Paula IC. Health technology assessment (HTA): Ethical aspects. Med Health Care Philos 2009; 12: 453-457. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    18. Strong C. Theoretical and practical problems with wide reflective equilibrium in bioethics. Theor Med Bioeth 2010; 31: 123-140. [Further reference details] [Full text]
    Total votes: 1711

    Preparing systematic reviews on ethical issues in health technologies

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-02-16

    This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on how to prepare systematic reviews on ethical issues in HTA:

    1. Droste S, Herrmann-Frank A, Scheibler F, Krones T. Ethical issues in autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in advanced breast cancer: A systematic literature review. BMC Med Ethics 2011; 12: 6. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    2. McCullough LB, Coverdale JH, Chervenak FA. Constructing a systematic review for argument-based clinical ethics literature: The example of concealed medications. J Med Philos 2007; 32(1): 65-76. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    3. McDougall R. Systematic reviews in bioethics: Types, challenges, and value. J Med Philos 2014; 39(1): 89-97. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    4. Sofaer N, Strech D. The need for systematic reviews of reasons. Bioethics 2012; 26(6): 315-328. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    5. Strech D. How factual do we want the facts? Criteria for a critical appraisal of empirical research for use in ethics. J Med Ethics 2010; 36(4): 222-225. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    6. Strech D, Sofaer N. How to write a systematic review of reasons. J Med Ethics 2012; 38: 121-126. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    7. Strech D, Synofzik M, Marckmann G. Systematic reviews of empirical bioethics. J Med Ethics 2008; 34(6): 472-477. [Further reference details] [Full text]
    Total votes: 1514

    Organizational aspects

    <2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for Organizational aspects
    Total votes: 1345

    Social aspects

    <2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for Social aspects
    Total votes: 1277

    Legal aspects

    <2014-01-08> This chapter will include a selection of Web resources for Legal aspects
    Total votes: 1405

    Further topics of interest

    <2014-01-08>This chapter will provide a selection of resources related to the following topics

    Total votes: 1431

    Stakeholder involvement

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-06-11

    This division presents a selection of publications on stakeholder involvement in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Regarding the stakeholders "patients" and "public / consumer" separate publication listings are introduced. Please feel free to visit the additional publication listings on
    Patient involvement and preferences
    Public / consumer involvement

    1. Cavazza M, Jommi C. Stakeholders involvement by HTA organisations: Why is so different? Health Policy 2012; 105(2-3): 236-245. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    2. Cicchetti A, Iacopino V, Carletto A, Marchetti M, Mennini FS. Il ruolo degli stakeholder nel processo di HTA. G Ital Health Technol Assess 2011; 4(2): 69-77. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    3. Flipse SM, van der Sanden MC, Osseweijer P. Setting up spaces for collaboration in industry between researchers from the natural and social sciences. Sci Eng Ethics 2014; 20(1): 7-22. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    4. Frønsdal K1, Pichler F, Mardhani-Bayne L, Henshall C, Røttingen JA, Mørland B, Klemp M. Interaction initiatives between regulatory, health technology assessment and coverage bodies, and industry. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012; 28(4): 374-381. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    5. Hao Y, Thomas A. Health technology assessment and comparative effectiveness research: A pharmaceutical industry perspective. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2013; 13(4): 447-54. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    6. Health Information and Quality Authority. Guidelines for Stakeholder Engagement in Health Technology Assessment in Ireland. Dublin: HIQA; 2014. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    7. Heath I. View of health technology assessment from the swampy lowlands of general practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(1): 81-86. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    8. Hivon M, Lehoux P, Denis JL, Tailliez S. Use of health technology assessment in decision making: coresponsibility of users and producers? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(2): 268-275. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    9. Lehoux P, Hivon M, Denis JL, Tailliez S. What medical specialists like and dislike about health technology assessment reports. J Health Serv Res Policy 2009; 14(4): 197-203. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    10. Leung MY, Halpern MT, West ND. Pharmaceutical technology assessment: Perspectives from payers. J Manag Care Pharm 2012; 18(3): 256-264. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    11. Lothgren M, Ratcliffe M. Pharmaceutical industry's perspective on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(1): 97-101. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    12. McGregor M, Brophy JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(2): 263-267. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    13. Nielsen CP, Lauritsen SW, Kristensen FB, Bistrup ML, Cecchetti A, Turk E, et al. Involving stakeholders and developing a policy for stakeholder involvement in the European network for health technology assessment, EUnetHTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(Suppl 2): 84-91. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    14. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Nylund HK, Oxman AD. User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63(6): 607-619. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    15. Schubert F. Health technology assessment: The pharmaceutical industry perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 18(2): 184-191. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    16. Watkins JB. Payer perspectives on health technology assessment. J Manag Care Pharm 2012; 18(3): 265-267. [Further reference details] [Full text]
    Total votes: 1463

    Patient involvement and preferences

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-06-10

    Patient and citzens involvement is represented by an HTAi Interest Sub-Group. Please feel free to visit the web page of the HTAi Interest Sub-Group on Patient and Citizen Involvement in HTA (PCISG).

    This sub-dividion presents a selection of methodological publications on patient involvement and preferences in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). For publications on the broader topics of public / consumer involvement or stakeholder involvement in HTA please feel free to visit the public / consumer involvement and stakeholder involvement listings.

    1. Atkinson MJ, Lohs J, Kuhagen I, Kaufman J, Bhaidani S. A promising method for identifying cross-cultural differences in patient perspective: The use of Internet-based focus groups for content validation of new patient reported outcome assessments. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4: 64. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    2. Bastian H, Scheibler F, Knelangen M, Zschorlich B, Nasser M, Waltering A. Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: The development of priority-setting criteria for patients' and consumers' interests. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27(4): 348-356. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    3. Brettschneider C, Luehmann D, Raspe H. Informative value of Patient -Reported Outcomes (PRO) in Health Technology Assessment (HTA ). GMS Health Technology Assessment 2011; 7: 1-15. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    4. Bridges JFP, Jones C. Patient based health technology assessment: A vision of the future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2007; 23: 30-35. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    5. Brooker AS, Carcone S, Witteman W, Krahn M. Quantitative patient preference evidence for health technology assessment: A case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013; 29(3): 290-300. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    6. Christiaens W, Kohn L, Léonard C, Denis A, Daue F, Cleemput I. Models for citizen and patient involvement in health care policy: Part I. Exploration of their feasibility and acceptability. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2013. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    7. Coulter A. Engaging patients in their healthcare: How is the UK doing relative to other countries? Oxford: Picker Institute; 2006. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    8. Coulter A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: Response from the patient's perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(1): 92-96. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    9. Danner M, Hummel JM, Volz F, vanManen JG, Wiegard B, Dintsios CM, et al. Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27(4): 369-375. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    10. Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, Hansen HP, Lo Scalzo A, Mossman J, et al. Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: A route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2010; 26(3): 334-340. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    11. Fattal J, Lehoux P. Health technology assessment use and dissemination by patient and consumer groups: Why and how? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24(4): 473-480. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    12. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Rhainds M, et al. Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27(1): 31-42. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    13. Gagnon MP, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Simard C, Rhainds M, et al. Introducing patient perspective in health technology assessment at the local level. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 27; 9: 54. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    14. Jacobsen CB, Pedersen VH, Albeck K. Patient involvement between ideals and reality: An empirical study of shared decision making and ordinary encounters between patients, doctors and nurses. Copenhagen: National Board of Health, Monitoring & Health Technology Assessment; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    15. Lee A, Skött LS, Hansen HP. Organizational and patient-related assessments in HTAs: State of the art. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25(4): 530-536. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    16. Lee A, Seest Sinding L. A review of organisational and patient-related assessments in HTAs published by INAHTA members. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA); 2007. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    17. Légaré F, Boivin A, van der Weijden T, Pakenham C, Burgers J, Légaré J, et al. Patient and public involvement in clinical practice guidelines: A knowledge synthesis of existing programs. Med Decis Making 2011; 31(6): E45-E74.  [Further reference details] [Full text]

    18. Menon D, Stafinski T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011; 11(1): 75-89. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    19. Sampietro-Colom L, Phillips V, Hutchinson A. Eliciting women’s preferences in health care: A review of the literature. Int J Technol Assess in Health Care 2004; 20: 145-155. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    20. Tjornhoj-Thomsen T, Hansen HP. Knowledge in health technology assessment: Who, what, how? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27(4): 324-329. [Further reference details] [Full text]
    Total votes: 1703

    Public / consumer involvement

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-06-10

    Patient and citzens involvement is represented by an HTAi Interest Sub-Group. Please feel free to visit the web page of the HTAi Interest Sub-Group on Patient and Citizen Involvement in HTA (PCISG).

    This sub-dicision presents a selection of publications on public resp. consumer resp. citizen involvement in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). For publications on the topics of patient involvement and preferences or stakeholder involvement in HTA please feel free to visit the patient involvement and preferences and stakeholder involvement listings.

    1. Abelson J, Bombard Y, Gauvin FP, Simeonov D, Boesveld S. Assessing the impacts of citizen deliberations on the health technology process. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013; 29(3): 282-289. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    2. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP. Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy 2007; 82(1): 37-50. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    3. Bastian H, Scheibler F, Knelangen M, Zschorlich B, Nasser M, Waltering A. Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: the development of priority-setting criteria for patients' and consumers' interests. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011; 27(4): 348-356. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    4. Buxton MJ, Chambers JD. What values do the public want their health care systems to use in evaluating technologies? Eur J Health Econ 2011; 12(4): 285-288. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    5. Fattal J, Lehoux P. Health technology assessment use and dissemination by patient and consumer groups: Why and how? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2008; 24(4): 473-480. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    6. Freile-Gutiérrez B. Participacion ciudadana en el contexto de la evaluacion de tecnologias sanitarias. Rev Med Chil 2014; 142 Suppl 1: 27-32. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    7. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Rhainds M, et al. Introducing patients' and the public's perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27(1): 31-42. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    8. Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. "It all depends": Conceptualizing public involvement in the context of health technology assessment agencies. Soc Sci Med 2010; 70(10): 1518-1526. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    9. Gauvin FP, Abelson J, Giacomini M, Eyles J, Lavis JN. Moving cautiously: Public involvement and the health technology assessment community. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27(1): 43-49. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    10. Gauvin FP. Public involvement in health technology assessment agencies: A comparative analysis of Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom [Thesis]. Hamilton: McMaster University; 2008. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    11. Hailey D. Consumer involvement in health technology assessment. Edmonton: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR); 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    12. Hailey D, Nordwall M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006; 22(4): 497-499. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    13. Hailey D, Werkö S, Bakri R, Cameron A, Göhlen B, Myles S, et al. Involvement of consumers in the HTA activities of INAHTA members: Report on a survey. Melbourne: International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA); 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    14. Hailey D, Werkö S, Bakri R, Cameron A, Göhlen B, Myles S. Involvement of consumers in health technology assessment activities by INAHTA agencies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013; 29(1): 79-83. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    15. Kreis J, Schmidt H. Public engagement in health technology assessment and coverage decisions: a study of experiences in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. J Health Polit Policy Law 2013; 38(1): 89-122.[Further reference details] [Full text]

    16. Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: Findings from a citizens' jury. Health Expect 2008; 11(3): 282-293. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    17. Menon D, Stafinski T. Role of patient and public participation in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011; 11(1): 75-89. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    18. Messina J, Grainger DL. A pilot study to identify areas for further improvements in patient and public involvement in health technology assessments for medicines. Patient 2012; 5(3): 199-211. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    19. Royle J, Oliver S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20(4): 493-497. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    20. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27(4): 391-399. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    21. Street JM, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Facey K, Ashcroft RE, Hiller JE. Virtual community consultation? Using the literature and weblogs to link community perspectives and health technology assessment. Health Expect 2008; 11(2): 189-200. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    22. Whitty JA. An international survey of the public engagement practices of health technology assessment organizations. Value Health 2013; 16(1): 155-163. [Further reference details] [Full text]
    Total votes: 1415

    HTA and policy

    <2014-01-08> This chapter will provide a selection of Web resources related to HTA and policy
    Total votes: 1387

    Conditional Coverage/Access

    Last revised: 
    2014-02-16

    Conditional coverage and evidence development in HTA is represented by an HTAi Interest Sub-Group. Please feel free to visit the web page of the HTAi Interest Sub-Group on Conditional Coverage and Evidence Development for Promising Technologies.

    <2014-01-08>This chapter will provide a selection of resources related to Conditional Coverage/Access

    Total votes: 1624

    Disinvestment

    Last revised: 
    2014-02-16

    Disinvestment and HTA is represented by an HTAi Interest Sub-Group. Please feel free to visit the web page of the HTAi Interest Sub-Group on Disinvestment of Obsolete or Low Added Value Health Technologies.

    <2014-01-08>This chapter will provide a selection of resources related to Disinvestment

    Total votes: 1561

    HTA and settings

    Total votes: 1412

    Hospital-based HTA

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-06-10

    Hospital-based HTA is represented by an HTAi Interest Sub-Group. Please feel free to visit the web page of the HTAi Interest Sub-Group on Hospital Based HTA.

    This sub-division presents a selection of methodological publications on hospital-based Health Technology Assessment:

    1. Attieh R, Gagnon MP. Implementation of local/hospital-based health technology assessment initiatives in low- and middle-income countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012; 28(4): 445-451. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    2. Battista RN, Déry V, Jacob R, Jacob R, Lance JM, Lavoie R, et al. L’évaluation des technologies et des modes d’intervention en santé dans les hôpitaux universitaires. Montréal: AETMIS; 2003. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    3. Boudard A, Martelli N, Prognon P, Pineau J. Clinical studies of innovative medical devices: what level of evidence for hospital-based health technology assessment? J Eval Clin Pract 2013; 19(4): 697-702. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    4. Cicchetti A. Strategic planning in healthcare organizations: The role of health technology assessment. In: Geisler E, Krabbendam K, Schuring R (ed). Technology, healthcare and management in the hospital of the future. Westport: Praeger; 2003: 67-80. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    5. Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment. Introduction to mini-HTA: A management and decision support tool for the hospital service. Copenhagen: DACEHTA; 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    6. Dopson S, Fitzgerald L. Knowledge to action? Evidence based health care in context. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    7. Ehlers L, Vestergaard M, Kidholm K, Bonnevie B, Pedersen PH, Jørgensen T, et al. Doing mini–health technology assessments in hospitals: A new concept of decision support in health care? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006; 22(3): 295-301. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    8. Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Gauvin FP, Rhainds M, et al. Introducing the patient's perspective in hospital health technology assessment (HTA): The views of HTA producers, hospital managers and patients. Health Expect 2012; Oct 10. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    9. Gagnon MP. Opportunities to promote efficiency in hospital decision-making through the use of health technology assessment. Ottawa: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2011. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    10. Hospital based Health Technology Assessment Sub-Interest Group, Health Technology Assessment international. Hospital based health technology assessment: World-wide survey. HTAi; no year. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    11. Knies S, Lombardi G, Commers M, Dauben HP, Evers S, Michelsen K. Supporting decision making in cross-border regions: A health technology assessment tool for hospitals. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2013; 29(1): 71-78. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    12. Luce BR, Brown RE. The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third-party payers in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995; 11(1): 79-92. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    13. McGregor M, Brophy JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005; 21(2): 263-267. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    14. Menon D, Marshall D. Technology assessment in teaching hospitals. Dimens Health Serv 1990; 67: 123-132. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    15. Sampietro-Colom L, Morilla-Bachs I, Gutierrez-Moreno S, Gallo P. Development and test of a decision support tool for hospital health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2012; 28(4): 460-465. [Further reference details] [Full text]

    16. Uphoff ME, Krane D. Hospital based technology assessment: Essential questions and an operational model. Public Productiv Manage Rev 1998; 22(1): 60-70. [Further reference details] [Full text]
    Total votes: 1708

    HTA in developing countries

    Last revised: 
    2014-02-16

    HTA in developing countries is represented by an HTAi Interest Sub-Group. Please feel free to visit the web page of the HTAi Interest Sub-Group on Developing Countries (HTAi DC ISG).

    <2014-01-08>This chapter will provide a selection of resources related to HTA in developing countries

    Total votes: 1563

    Countries' facts

    Under this chapter, you will find a selection of references and resources per country.
    Total votes: 1455

    About Austria

    References: 

    Web Article

    Austria - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2013. Abstract
    Austria - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014. Abstract

    Book

    Hofmarcher MM, Rack HM. Austria: Health system review. Vol 8 (3). Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2006.

    Journal Article

    Wild C. Health technology assessment in Austria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(2):303-24. Abstract
    See Also
    Total votes: 1757

    About Belgium

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-06-06
    References: 

    Journal Article

    Book

    Gerkens S, Merkur S. Belgium: Health system review. Vol 12-5. Mossialos E, Busse R, Figueras J, McKee M, Saltman R, editors. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2010. Abstract

    Web Article

    Belgium - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    Belgium - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014.
    See Also
    Total votes: 1628

    About Brazil

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Journal Article

    Total votes: 1279

    About Canada

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Journal Article

    Web Article

    Canada - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    Canada - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014.

    Book

    Marchildon GP. Canada: Health system review. Vol 15 (1). Sagan A, Thomson S, editors. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2013. Abstract

    Report

    Total votes: 1415

    About Croatia

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-06-06
    References: 

    Web Article

    Croatia - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    Croatia - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014.

    Journal Article

    Book

    Voncina L, Jemiai N, Merkur S, Golna C, Maeda A, Chao S, et al. Croatia: Health system review. Vol 8 (7). Mossialos E, Busse R, Figueras J, McKee M, Saltman R, editors. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2006. Abstract
    See Also
    Total votes: 1458

    About Denmark

    References: 

    Journal Article

    Web Article

    Denmark - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014.
    Denmark - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014.

    Book

    Report

    See Also

    Total votes: 1484

    About Finland

    Author(s): 
    Last revised: 
    2014-06-06
    References: 

    See also

    Total votes: 1453

    About France

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Journal Article

    Book

    Web Article

    France - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    France - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014. Abstract

    Report

    See also

    Total votes: 1163

    About Germany

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Journal Article

    Gerhardus A. [The role of HTA in German health care. Do we need impact objectives?]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2006;49(3):233-40. Abstract

    Book

    Busse R, Riesberg A. Health care systems in transition: Germany. Vol 6 (9). Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2004. Abstract

    Web Article

    Germany - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    Germany - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014. Abstract

    Report

    Total votes: 1066

    About Hungary

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 
    Total votes: 1148

    About Italy

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Journal Article

    France G. Health technology assessment in Italy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(2):459-74. Abstract

    Web Article

    Italy - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    Italy - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014. Abstract

    Book

    Report

    Total votes: 1033

    About Lithuania

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Journal Article

    Book

    Health Care Systems in Transition: Lithuania. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2000.

    Web Article

    Lithuania - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    Lithuania - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) City Paris; 2014. Abstract
    Total votes: 1317

    About Malaysia

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Web Article

    Malaysia - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    Malaysia - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014.

    Journal Article

    Sivalal S. Health technology assessment in Malaysia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 Suppl 1:224-30. Abstract
    Total votes: 1015

    About Mexico

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 
    Total votes: 1147

    About Netherlands

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Journal Article

    Web Article

    Netherlands - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    Netherlands - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014. Abstract

    Book

    Report

    Total votes: 927

    About Poland

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Web Article

    Poland - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    Poland - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014. Abstract

    Journal Article

    Book

    Panteli D, Sagan A. Poland : Health system review. Vol 13 (8). Mossialos E, Busse R, Figueras J, McKee M, Saltman R, editors. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2011. Abstract
    Total votes: 977

    About South Africa

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-08
    References: 

    Web Article

    South Africa - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    South Africa - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. 2013-02 ed. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2013.

    Journal Article

    Total votes: 921

    About Spain

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Journal Article

    Book

    Web Article

    Spain - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    Spain - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014. Abstract
    Total votes: 1003

    About Sweden

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Book

    Journal Article

    Jonsson E. History of health technology assessment in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 Suppl 1:42-52.

    Web Article

    Sweden - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    Sweden - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014. Abstract

    Report

    Total votes: 948

    About Switzerland

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Journal Article

    Book

    Web Article

    Switzerland - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    Switzerland - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014. Abstract

    Report

    Total votes: 989

    About Taiwan

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Journal Article

    Total votes: 1005

    About United Kingdom

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Journal Article

    Book

    Web Article

    United Kingdom - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    United Kingdom - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014. Abstract

    Report

    Total votes: 835

    About United States of America

    Last revised: 
    2014-06-16
    References: 

    Journal Article

    Web Article

    United States - GHO Country statistics. Vol 2014. Geneva: World Health Organisation (WHO); 2014. Abstract
    United States - OECD Countries. Vol 2014. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); 2014. Abstract

    Report

    Total votes: 1038