Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:08:52.884Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEVELOPING A PRIORITIZED LIST OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES: THE SPANISH EXPERIENCE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2015

Leonor Varela-Lema ,
Ramón De La Fuente-Cid  and
Marisa López-García
Leonor Varela-Lema
Affiliation:
Galician Agency for Health Technology Assessment(Axencia de Avaliación de Tecnoloxías Sanitarias de Galicia/avalia-t), Galician Health Authority, Santiago de Compostela, Spainleonor.varela.lema@sergas.es
Ramón De La Fuente-Cid
Affiliation:
Galician Agency for Health Technology Assessment(Axencia de Avaliación de Tecnoloxías Sanitarias de Galicia/avalia-t), Galician Health Authority, Santiago de Compostela, Spainleonor.varela.lema@sergas.es
Marisa López-García
Affiliation:
Galician Agency for Health Technology Assessment(Axencia de Avaliación de Tecnoloxías Sanitarias de Galicia/avalia-t), Galician Health Authority, Santiago de Compostela, Spainleonor.varela.lema@sergas.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Selecting technologies for formal assessment poses a great challenge to health technology assessment agencies. This study aims to contribute to the creation of a reference framework for the identification, filtering, and prioritization of new and emerging technologies which could be demanded in clinical practice within the next 1–2 years.

Methods: Technologies were identified using a prevalidated systematic Medline strategy. They were classified by medical specialty and then sent to selected professionals belonging to the medical units or areas responsible for their application, until there was a minimum of three participants per health care setting. A self-administered questionnaire was drawn up and health professionals were asked to: (1) assess the degree of innovation of the technologies, and (11) score their foreseeable clinical impact on the basis of predefined prioritization criteria (n = 4). Intra-rater reliability was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: The Medline search yielded 246 potentially relevant technologies. When analyzed by health care area or unit, sixty-eight were deemed to be high-impact innovative technologies (median score >6), with ICCs ranging from 0.03 to 0.83. The final list resulting from the aggregate analysis comprised fifty-one technologies.

Conclusions: This study constitutes an innovative contribution to horizon scanning, providing a systematic and reproducible basis for the identification and selection of relevant new and emerging technologies based on the views and values of health professionals involved in their use. In our opinion, the current proposal could be helpful and useful to many other organizations worldwide, serving to complement already existing strategies.

Keywords

Early warning systemsHealth service researchHealth priorities
Type
Policies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 6 , December 2014 , pp. 626 - 633
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. Simpson, S, Packer, C, Carlsson, P, et al. Early identification and assessment of new and emerging technologies: Actions, progress, and the future direction of an international collaboration-EuroScan. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:518–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. EuroScan International Network. EuroScan. Birmingham: EuroScan International Network; 2012.Google Scholar
3. Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, I, Simpson, S, Benguria-Arrate, G. Early awareness and alert systems: An overview of EuroScan methods. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:301–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Benguria Arrate, G, Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, I, Llanos, A, et al. Red estatal de identificación, priorización y evaluación temprana de tecnologías sanitarias nuevas y emergentes. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Servicio de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias del País Vasco (Osteba); 2006.Google Scholar
5. Robert, G, Gabbay, J, Stevens, A. Which are the best information sources for identifying emerging health care technologies? An international Delphi survey. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:636–643.Google Scholar
6. Smith, J, Cook, A, Packer, C. Evaluation criteria to assess the value of identification sources for horizon scanning. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:348–353.Google Scholar
7. Packer, C, Fung, M, Stevens, A. Analyzing 10 years of early awareness and alert activity in the United kingdom. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:308–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. O’Malley, SP, Jordan, E. Horizon scanning of new and emerging medical technology in Australia: Its relevance to Medical Services Advisory Committee health technology assessments and public funding. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:374–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Mundy, L, Hiller, J, Merlin, T. The true role of horizon scanning in Australia: Who it informs and why. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27:95–96; author reply 96–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Douw, K, Vondeling, H. Selection of new health technologies for assessment aimed at informing decision making: A survey among horizon scanning systems. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:177–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Gallego, G, Bridges, JF, Flynn, T, Blauvelt, BM, Niessen, LW. Using best-worst scaling in horizon scanning for hepatocellular carcinoma technologies. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:339–346.Google Scholar
12. Varela-Lema, L, Punal-Riobóo, J, Casal Acción, B, Ruano-Ravina, A, Garcia, ML. Making processes reliable: A validated pubmed search strategy for identifying new or emerging technologies. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:452–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. EuroScan. Terminology and understanding of the activity. 2013. Available at http://euroscan.org.uk/ (accessed January 7, 2013).Google Scholar
14. Hallgren, KA. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2012;8:23–34.Google Scholar
15. Fleiss, JL, Cohen, J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Physicol Meas. 1973;33:613–619.Google Scholar
16. Cicchetti, DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment intruments in psychology. Phsycol Assess. 1994;6:284–290.Google Scholar
17. Douw, K, Vondeling, H, Eskildsen, D, Simpson, S. Use of the internet in scanning the horizon for new and emerging health technologies: A survey of agencies involved in horizon scanning. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5:e6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Murphy, K, Packer, C, Stevens, A, Simpson, S. Effective early warning systems for new and emerging health technologies: Developing an evaluation framework and an assessment of current systems. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:324–330.Google Scholar
19. Noorani, HZ, Husereau, DR, Boudreau, R, Skidmore, B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:310–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Henshall, C, Oortwijn, W, Stevens, A, Granados, A, Banta, D. Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. Priority setting Subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project. Int J Health Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:144–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Vidal-Espana, F, Leiva-Fernandez, F, Prados-Torres, J.D, et al. Identificación de tecnologías nuevas y emergentes. Aten Primaria. 2007;39:641–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Balabanova, Y, Gilsdorf, A, Buda, S, et al. Communicable diseases prioritized for surveillance and epidemiological research: Results of a standardized prioritization procedure in Germany. PloS One. 2011;6:e25691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Eger, K, Gleichweit, S, Rieder, A, Stein, KV. Prioritising integrated care initiatives on a national level. Experiences from Austria. Int J Integr Care. 2009;9:e91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Varela-Lema supplementary material

Table S1

Download Varela-Lema supplementary material(File)
File 30.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Varela-Lema supplementary material

Table S2

Download Varela-Lema supplementary material(File)
File 35.1 KB