Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:03:36.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY MAKING: QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXPERIENCE

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2015

Hong Ju  and
Kaye Hewson
Hong Ju
Affiliation:
Health Technology Assessment and Evaluation Team, Queensland Department of Health, h.ju@uq.edu.au
Kaye Hewson
Affiliation:
Health Technology Assessment and Evaluation Team, Queensland Department of Health, h.ju@uq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: Evidence-based policy making is increasingly used for better resource allocation. Queensland Department of Health has developed a new model to introduce innovative health technologies through a health technology assessment (HTA) program.

Structure: A state-wide committee and several sub-committees at health service district level were established to oversee the HTA program and to monitor the uptake of technologies. The committees are supported by a multidisciplinary secretariat comprising staff with key HTA skills.

Process: The process starts with HTA applications, which are then shortlisted according to prespecified criteria. A due diligence process adopting a rapid evidence assessment approach is used to evaluate the applications. Based on the assessment, recommendations are made using a deliberative decision-making process guided by well-recognized tools. With positive recommendation, a technology is piloted in constrained local setting before its system-wide diffusion.

Outcome: The HTA program has assisted health administrators in prioritizing their health technology agendas. It has gained trust and wide support from policy makers and is increasingly used to support funding allocations, indicating the increasing awareness of and confidence in the program.

Conclusions: The HTA program is a valuable process to assist evidence-based policy development and to guide better resource allocation.

Keywords

Evidence-based practiceHealth technologyHealth impact assessmentPolicy making
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 6 , December 2014 , pp. 595 - 600
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Levin, L, Goeree, R, Levine, M, et al. Coverage with evidence development: The Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:159–168.Google Scholar
2. VPACT. VPACT decision-making framework for health technology investment in Victorian public hospitals. Melbourne: Victoria Policy Advisory Committee on Technology; 2009.Google Scholar
3. Levin, L, Goeree, R, Sikich, N, et al. Establishing a comprehensive continuum from an evidentiary base to policy development for health technologies: The Ontario experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:299–309.Google Scholar
4. NHMRC. How to use the evidence: Assessment and application of scientific evidence. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council; 2000.Google Scholar
5. OHTAC. Decision determinants guiance document. Toronto: The Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee; 2009.Google Scholar
6. Guyatt, G, Gutterman, D, Baumann, MH, et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of evidence in clinical guidelines: Report from an american college of chest physicians task force. Chest. 2006;129:174–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. NHMRC GAR Consultants Working Party. NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines: STAGE 2 CONSULTATION. 2007. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/Stage%202%20Consultation%20Levels%20and%20Grades.pdf (accessed March 6, 2013).Google Scholar
8. Bowen, JM, Patterson, LL, O’Reilly, D, et al. Conditionally funded field evaluations and practical trial design within a health technology assessment framework. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6:324–331.Google Scholar
9. Goeree, R, Levin, L. Building bridges between academic research and policy formulation: The PRUFE framework - an integral part of Ontario's evidence-based HTPA process. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:1143–1156.Google Scholar
10. Whicher, DM, Chalkidou, K, Dhalla, IA, Levin, L, Tunis, S. Comparative effectiveness research in Ontario, Canada: Producing relevant and timely information for health care decision makers. Milbank Q. 2009;87:585–606.Google Scholar
11. Elshaug, AG, Hiller, JE, Moss, JR. Exploring policy-makers’ perspectives on disinvestment from ineffective healthcare practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;w24:1–9.Google Scholar