Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:50:19.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of CEDIT recommendations: An example of health technology assessment in a hospital network

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2006

Florence Bodeau-Livinec ,
Emmanuelle Simon ,
Catherine Montagnier-Petrissans ,
Marie-Eve Joël  and
Elisabeth Féry-Lemonnier
Florence Bodeau-Livinec
Affiliation:
Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris (AP-HP) and INSERM
Emmanuelle Simon
Affiliation:
Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris (AP-HP)
Catherine Montagnier-Petrissans
Affiliation:
Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris (AP-HP)
Marie-Eve Joël
Affiliation:
Dauphine University
Elisabeth Féry-Lemonnier
Affiliation:
Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris (AP-HP)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study is to assess the impact of CEDIT (French Committee for the Assessment and Dissemination of Technological Innovations) recommendations on the introduction of technological innovations within the AP-HP (Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris), the French hospital network to which this body is attached.

Methods: In 2002, a study based on semidirective interviews of fourteen people affected by these recommendations and a case study relating to thirteen recommendations issued between 1995 and 1998 were conducted.

Results: The CEDIT is very scientifically reputable among interviewees. There is generally widespread interest for the recommendations. They are used as decision-making tools by administrative staff and as negotiating instruments by doctors in their dealings with management. Based on the case study, ten of thirteen recommendations had an impact on the introduction of the technology in health establishments. One recommendation appears not to have had an impact. Furthermore, the impact of two technologies was impossible to assess.

Conclusions: This study highlights the significant impact of recommendations arising from a structure that is attached to a hospital network and the good match between CEDIT's objectives and its assignments.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentImpact studyHealth policyHospitalFrance
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 161 - 168
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

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

Brorsson B, Arvidsson S. 1997 The effect of dissemination of recommendations on use. Preoperative routines in Sweden, 1989-91. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 13: 547– 552.Google Scholar
Cuzin B, Kirkorian G, Maisonneuve H. 2000 Cardiac pacemakers. When clinical evaluation lags behind technological progress. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 910– 923.Google Scholar
Dixon S, Coleman P, Nicholl J, et al. 2003 Evaluation of the impact of a technology appraisal process in England: The South and West Development and Evaluation Committee. J Health Serv Res Policy. 8: 18– 24.Google Scholar
Dobbins M, Cockerill R, Barnsley J. 2001 Factors affecting the utilization of systematic reviews. A study of public health decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 17: 203– 214.Google Scholar
Durand-Zaleski I, Jolly D. 1990 Technology assessment in health care–decision makers and health care providers: What they need to know. Health Policy. 15: 37– 44.Google Scholar
Féry-Lemonnier E. 2002 L'évaluation des technologies médicales. ADSP. 39: 28– 33.Google Scholar
Féry-Lemonnier E. 2003 Neuf voies de succès pour une bonne introduction des innovations médicales. RVH. 493: 25– 31.Google Scholar
Garcia-Altes A, Ondategui-Parra S, Neumann PJ. 2004 Cross-national comparison of technology assessment processes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 300– 310.Google Scholar
Glikman J, Pazart L, Casadebaig F, et al. 2000 Assessing the impact of a consensus conference on long-term therapy for schizophrenia. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 251– 259.Google Scholar
Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. 1993 Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: A systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet. 342: 1317– 1322.Google Scholar
Grol R, Grimshaw J. 2003 From best evidence to best practice: Effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet. 362: 1225– 1230.Google Scholar
Hailey D, Corabian P, Harstall C, Schneider W. 2000 The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 651– 656.Google Scholar
Hailey D, Menon D. 1999 A short history of INAHTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 15: 236– 242.Google Scholar
Jacob R, Battista RN. 1993 Assessing technology assessment. Early results of the Quebec experience. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 9: 564– 572.Google Scholar
Jacob R, McGregor M. 1997 Assessing the impact of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 13: 68– 80.Google Scholar
Lomas J, Anderson GM, Domnick-Pierre K, et al. 1989 Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med. 321: 1306– 1311.Google Scholar
Milne R, Clegg A, Stevens A. 2003 HTA responses and the classic HTA report. J Public Health Med. 25: 102– 106.Google Scholar
Mowatt G, Bower DJ, Brebner JA, et al. 1997 When and how to assess fast-changing technologies: A comparative study of medical applications of four generic technologies. Health Technol Assess. 1: i– vi, 1– 149.Google Scholar
Oliver A, Mossialos E, Robinson R. 2004 Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 1– 10.Google Scholar
Orvain J, Xerri B, Matillon Y. 2004 Overview of health technology assessment in France. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 25– 34.Google Scholar
Thomson R, Lavender M, Madhok R. 1995 How to ensure that guidelines are effective. BMJ. 311: 237– 242.Google Scholar
Vermeulen V, Coppens K, Kesteloot K. 2001 Impact of health technology assessment on preventive screening in Belgium: Case studies of mammography in breast cancer, PSA screening in prostate cancer, and ultrasound in normal pregnancy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 17: 316– 328.Google Scholar
Wathen B, Dean T. 2004 An evaluation of the impact of NICE guidance on GP prescribing. Br J Gen Pract. 54: 103– 107.Google Scholar