Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T13:27:52.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IS THE PLANNED AND ONGOING PROJECT (POP) DATABASE A SUITABLE TOOL TO REDUCE DUPLICATION IN THE PROCESS OF ASSESSING NEW HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION? PRELIMINARY EXPERIENCE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EUNETHTA JOINT ACTION PROJECT FRAMEWORK (2010–2012)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2015

Hindrik Vondeling  and
Marianne Sandvei
Hindrik Vondeling
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Health Services Research (CAST), University of Southern Denmark, Centre for Health Economics Research (COHERE), University of Southern Denmark, Department of Health, Technology and Services Research (HTSR), University of Twente hvondeling@health.sdu.dk
Marianne Sandvei
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Health Services Research (CAST), University of Southern Denmark masa@cast.sdu.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Joint Action Project Framework, 2010–12, Work Package 7B (WP 7B), was aimed at facilitating collaboration between HTA agencies to avoid duplication of assessment efforts. A major task of WP 7B was to collect information on planned and ongoing (POP) projects by EUnetHTA agencies and to incorporate this information in a POP Database. We analyzed whether the Database served its intended purpose.

Methods: A survey was sent to all fifty-seven EUnetHTA partners, complemented by telephone interviews with the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of HTA in Austria (lead institution). Furthermore, detailed documentation on the activities of the POP Database was provided to the research team at CAST (University of Southern Denmark) by the lead institution.

Results: Forty-two of fifty-seven agencies (74 percent) responded to the survey. Eleven collaborations initiated by agencies themselves were reported. The scope of these collaborative activities was usually limited to information exchange on for example literature search protocols. A slight reduction of duplication of effort was documented. In addition, twelve collaborations at the full report level were initiated by the lead institution.

Conclusion: While the POP Database has the potential to reduce duplication of effort, this has not been realized during the 3-year period of the EUnetHTA Joint Action Project Framework, 2010–12. Further evidence needs to be gathered to determine whether the POP Database is effective and whether the benefits outweigh the resources required to maintain it.

Keywords

International collaborationhealth technology assessmentEUnetHTA Joint Action Project Framework 2010–12
Type
Theme Submissions
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 5 , November 2014 , pp. 504 - 507
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. Wild, C, Erdös, J, Warmuth, M, et al. The Planned and Ongoing Projects (POP) Database: Development and results. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:497–503.Google Scholar
2. Sandvei, M, Vondeling, H, Olsen, J. The role of the planned and ongoing projects database (POP Database) in reducing duplication of effort and promotion of collaboration between HTA Agencies in the European Union. An assessment of the EUnetHTA JA1 WP 7B. 2012. http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles//1/3/A/%7B13A13CED-AB06–42BA-B45C-62F6DD06BE51%7DEunetHTAWP7BAssessment.pdf (accessed October 9, 2014).Google Scholar
3. Huić, M, Nachtnebel, A, Zehmeister, I, Pasternak, I, Wild, C. Collaboration in health technology assessment (EUnetHTA Joint Action 2010–2012): Four case studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29:323–330 Google Scholar
4. Turner, S, Chase, DL, Milne, R, et al. The health technology assessment adaptation toolkit: Description and use. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):37–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. PROSPERO. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ (accessed June 24, 2014).Google Scholar
6. International Network of Health Technology Assessment Agencies (INAHTA). The CRD-HTA Database. www.inahta.org/hta-tools-resources/database/ (accessed June 25, 2014).Google Scholar