Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:33:51.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of the quality of mini-HTA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2009

Kristian Kidholm ,
Lars Ehlers ,
Lisa Korsbek ,
Rolf Kjærby  and
Mickael Beck
Kristian Kidholm
Affiliation:
Odense University Hospital
Lars Ehlers
Affiliation:
Institute of Public Health and Center of Public Health
Lisa Korsbek
Affiliation:
Odense University Hospital
Rolf Kjærby
Affiliation:
Odense University Hospital
Mickael Beck
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Mini-HTA (health technology assessment) is increasingly being applied in Denmark as an input for decisions on the use of health technologies. Mini-HTA is a form or check list with questions concerning the prerequisites for and consequences of health technologies. At the national level, the National Board of Health uses mini-HTA when hospitals apply for permission to introduce new treatments. Mini-HTA is also compulsory in Danish Regions' annual collection of early warnings. At the local level some hospitals have made mini-HTA compulsory when clinical departments apply for funding for new technologies. The objective of this study is to assess the quality of the information included in mini-HTA used at Danish hospitals and to discuss the consequences of this to decision making.

Methods: The quality of mini-HTA is assessed by use of an INATHA checklist for HTA reports. Data consists of reviews of the quality in fifty-two mini-HTAs produced by Danish hospitals in 2008.

Results: The mini-HTAs generally include descriptions of the assessed technology and the comparator, but information about the selection and interpretation of the clinical literature and other data is often missing. The level of evidence for the clinical effects and the main references are generally included. Only 25 percent of the mini-HTAs include a quantitative estimate of the size of the clinical effects. Organizational consequences inside the clinical department is described in 81percent of the cases and 92 percent includes a cost estimate.

Conclusions: The results show that the quality of the information in many cases is insufficient. There is a strong need for quality assurance of mini-HTAs to improve the accuracy of the information, however, without harming the timeliness and the limited use of resources in producing the reports.

Keywords

Mini-HTAQualityTransparencyHospital based HTA
Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 42 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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. Busse, R, Orvain, J, Velasco, M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments: Working Group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Chantler, C. Health-care technology assessment: A clinical perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:87–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA). Introduction to mini-HTA—a management and decision support tool for the hospital service. Copenhagen: The National Board of Health; December 2005.Google Scholar
4. Ehlers, L, Vestergaard, M, Kidholm, K, 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;22:295–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Elston, J, Stein, K. A rapid needs assessment of the provision of health technology assessment in the south-west peninsula. J Public Health. 2007;29:157–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Folkersen, J, Pedersen, PH. [Attitudes to the use of a decision support method when introducing new medical technology at the University Hospital of Copenhagen] [Article in Danish]. Ugeskr Laeger. 2006;168:2069–2074.Google Scholar
7. Gagnon, MP, Sanchez, E, Pons, JMV. Integration of health technology assessment recommendations into organizational and clinical practice: A case study in Catalonia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:169–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Hailey, D. Toward transparency in health technology assessment. A checklist for HTA reports. 2003; Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Lafortune, L, Farand, L, Mondou, I, et al. Assessing the performance of health technology assessment organizations: A framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:76–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Maddern, G. HTA in the hospital setting: The Australian experience. Ital J Public Health. 2005;2 (Suppl 1):93.Google Scholar
11. 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;21:263–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Oliver, A, Mossialos, E, Robinson, R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. The Danish HTA project database: www.sst.dk/Planlaegning_og_behandling/Medicinsk_teknologivurdering/Publikationer/cemtv_-_Publikationsdatabasen.aspx?lang=en.Google Scholar
14. Watt, A, Cameron, A, Sturm, L, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:133–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed