Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T21:49:36.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ATTITUDES AND BARRIERS TOWARD MINI-HTA IN THE DANISH MUNICIPALITIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2012

Lars Ehlers  and
Morten Berg Jensen
Lars Ehlers
Affiliation:
Aalborg University email: lehlers@business.aau.dk
Morten Berg Jensen
Affiliation:
Aarhus University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: In 2008 the Danish National Board of Health launched an information campaign aimed at introducing mini-HTA as a management and decision support tool for the municipalities. Today (January 2012), mini-HTA is still not used regularly in the municipalities.

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the latent attitudes toward mini-HTA among ninety-three participants in five voluntary workshops on mini-HTA held in the period of May 2008 to February 2009.

Methods: In a questionnaire including three open questions respondents were asked to state their perception of what mini-HTA could be used for in the municipality, the main barriers for using mini-HTA, and what could make it easier to implement mini-HTA. Answers were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using binary coding and statistical examination of patterns in form of R-factor analysis.

Results: The four significant latent attitudes were a general acceptance of HTA-principles, a derived need for a political/managerial decision to use mini-HTA in the municipality, worries about barriers in the medium run, and worries about barriers in the short run.

Conclusions: A national information campaign to support the uptake of mini-HTA in local health-care institutions was insufficient in the Danish municipalities and should have been supplemented with a strategy to secure local political/managerial willingness to use mini-HTA and the removal of short- and medium-term barriers. The implementation of local HTA should not just be seen as a question of how to increase the use of evidence in decision-making, but as a matter of reforming local decision processes.

Type
METHODS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 271 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.Danish Regions (Amtsrådsforeningen). Minutes of the health director meeting 4. February, Item 6 “Proposal for procedure for early warning of new treatments and services”, 2005. (in Danish).Google Scholar
2.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
3.Folkersen, J, Pedersen, PH. Attitudes to, the use of a decision support method when introducing new medical technology at the University Hospital of Copenhagen. Ugeskr Laeger. 2006;168:2069–2074. (in Danish)Google Scholar
4.Gallego, G, Gool, K, Kelleher, D. Resource allocation and health technology assessment in Australia: Views from the local level. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:134–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Gibson, B. Beyond ‘two communities’. In: Lin, V, Gibson, B, eds. Evidence-based health policy: Problems and possibilities. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2003; 18–32.Google Scholar
6.Gulis, G, Gry, P, Kræmer, SRJ, Health impact assessment – from theory to practice. Copenhagen: The National Board of Health; 2008. (in Danish)Google Scholar
7.Hair, JF, Black, WC, Babin, BJ, Anderson, RE.Multivariate data analysis. New York: Pearson; 2010.Google Scholar
8.Kidholm, K, Ehlers, L, Korsbek, L, et al.Assessment of the quality of mini-HTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:42–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Kristensen, FB, Sigmund, H, Kristensen, FB. Health technology assessment in Denmark: Strategy, implementation, and Developments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:94–101.Google Scholar
10.Lettieri, E, Masella, C, Nocco, U. Budgeting and health technology assessment: First evidence obtained from proposal forms used to submit the adoption of new technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:502–510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Mislevy, RJ. Recent developments in the factor analysis of categorical variables. J Educ Statist. 1986;11:3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Mitton, C, Donaldson, C. Setting priorities in Canadian regional health authorities: A survey of key decision makers. Health Policy. 2002;60:39–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Nielsen, CP, Funch, TM, Kristensen, FB. Health technology assessment: Research trends and future priorities in Europe. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011;16:6–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Sigmund, H, , Kristensen FB. Health technology assessment in Denmark: Strategy, implementation, and developments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:94–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Strandberg-Larsen, M, Nielsen, MB, Vallgårda, S, et al.Denmark: Health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2007;9:1–164.Google Scholar
17.Sundhedsstyrelsen. Introduction to Mini-HTA – a management and decision support tool for the municipalities. Copenhagen: The National Board of Health; 2008. (in Danish)Google Scholar
18.Vuorenkoski, L, Toiviainen, H, Hemminki, E. Decision-making in priority setting for medicines. A review of empirical studies. Health Policy. 2008;86:1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Ehlers supplementary material

Ehlers supplementary material

Download Ehlers supplementary material(File)
File 26.6 KB