Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:58:09.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Defining products for a new health technology assessment agency in Madrid, Spain: A survey of decision makers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2008

Elena Andradas
Affiliation:
Agencia Laín Entralgo
Juan-Antonio Blasco
Affiliation:
Agencia Laín Entralgo
Beatriz Valentín
Affiliation:
Agencia Laín Entralgo
María-José López-Pedraza
Affiliation:
Agencia Laín Entralgo
Francisco-Javier Gracia
Affiliation:
Agencia Laín Entralgo

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore the needs and requirements of decision makers in our regional healthcare system for health technology assessment (HTA) products to support portfolio development planning for a new HTA agency in Madrid, Spain.

Methods: A Delphi study was conducted during 2003. Questionnaires were developed based on a review of products and services offered by other agency members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment, and included preference and prioritization questions to evaluate twenty-two different products and services. The initial Delphi panel involved eighty-seven experts from twenty-one public hospitals, eleven primary healthcare centers, six private hospitals, and eight departments of the Regional Ministry of Health of the Community of Madrid.

Results: The global participation rate was 83.9 percent. Ten of the twenty-two possible products were rated of high interest by more than 80 percent of respondents. Important differences in preferences and priorities were detected across different settings. Public hospitals and primary healthcare centers shared a more “micro” perspective, preferring classic technology-centered HTA products, whereas private hospitals and Ministry representatives demanded more “macro” products and services such as organizational model and information system assessments.

Conclusions: The high participation rate supports the representativeness of the results for our regional context. The strategic development of an HTA portfolio based on decision makers’ needs and requirements as identified in this type of exercise should help achieve a better impact on policy development and decision making.

Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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] Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Médicas e Investigación. Cataluña (AATRM). Memorias anuales y Publicaciones. Available at: http://www.gencat.net/salut/depsan/units/aatrm/html/es/dir383/index.html. Accessed April 16, 2007.Google Scholar
2. Agencia de Evaluación deTecnologías Sanitarias deAndalucía (AETSA). Memorias de actividades. Available at: http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/salud/orgdep/AETSA/documento.asp?id=19. Accessed April 16, 2007.Google Scholar
3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Publications & Products. About AHRQ. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/about./ Accessed April 16, 2007.Google Scholar
4. Battista, RN, Hodge, MJ. The evolving paradigm of health technology assessment: reflections for the millennium. CAMJ. 1999;160:14641467.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Battista, RN, Lance, JM, Lehoux, P, Regnier, G. Health technology assessment and the regulation of medical devices and procedures in Quebec. Synergy, collusion or collision? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:593601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Brook, RH, Chassin, MR, Fink, A et al. , A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986;2:5363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Draborg, E, Gryd-Hansen, D, Bo Poulsen, P, Horder, M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:8995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Gabbay, J, Walley, T. Introducing new health interventions. BMJ. 2006;332:6465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Gagnon, MP, Sánchez, E, Pons, JMV. Integration of health technology assessment recomendations into organizational and clinical practice: A case study in Catalonia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:169176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Gracia San Roman, FJ, Calcerrada Díaz-Santos, N. Grupo de trabajo de la guía de práctica clínica del manejo del paciente con artrosis de rodilla en Atención Primaria. Guía de Práctica Clínica del manejo del paciente con artrosis de rodilla en Atención Primaria. Madrid: Unidad de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (UETS), Área de Investigación y Estudios Sanitarios. Agencia Laín Entralgo; Septiembre 2006.Google Scholar
11. Helmer, O. Analysis of the future the Delphi method. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation; 1967:3558.Google Scholar
12. Henshall, C, Koch, P, von Below, GC et al. , Health technology assessment in policy and practice. Working Group 6 Report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:447455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Hivon, M, Lehoux, P, Denis, JL, Tailliez, S. Use of health technology assessment in decision making: Coresponsibility of users and producers? Int J Tehnol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:268275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). Current projects and publications. Available at: http://www.inahta.org/inahta_web/index.asp. Accessed April 16, 2007.Google Scholar
15. Jones, J, Hunter, D. Qualitative research: Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311:376380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Jonsson, E, Banta, D. Management of health Technologies: An international view. BMJ. 1999;319:1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Lehoux, P, Tailliez, S, Denis, JL, Hivon, M. Redifining health technology assessment in Canada: Diversification of products and contextualization of findings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:325336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Mears, R, Taylor, R, Littlejohns, P, Dillon, A. Review of international health technology assessment (IHTA) project report. London: National Institute of Clinical Excellence; 2000.Google Scholar
19. National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA). About the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Available at: http://www.hta.nhsweb.nhs.uk/aboutHTA.htm. Accessed April 16, 2007.Google Scholar
20. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). How we work. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=howwework. Accessed April 16, 2007.Google Scholar
21. OECD Health Data 2006. Statistics and indicators for 30 countries. October, 2006. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/health/healthdata. Accessed April 16, 2007.Google Scholar
22. Oliver, A, Mossialos, E, Robinson, R. Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Health Assess Health Care. 2004;20:110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Quintana, JM, Escobar, A, Aróstegui, I. Development of appropriateness explicit criteria for cataract extraction by phacoemulsification. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Rossen, R, Gabbay, J. Linking health technology assessment to practice. BMJ. 1999;319:1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Servicio de Evaluación deTecnologías deLa Xunta deGalicia (AVALIA-T). Producción científica y Publicaciones. Available at: http://www.sergas.es/avalia-t/. Accessed April 16, 2007.Google Scholar
26. Servicio de Evaluación deTecnologías Sanitarias del País Vasco (OSTEBA). Publicaciones. Available at: http://www.osasun.ejgv.euskadi.net/r52-478/es/contenidos/informacion/publicaciones_osteba/es_1215/pubost.html. Accessed April 16, 2007.Google Scholar