Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:54:54.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Master's Program in health technology assessment and management: Assessment of the first edition (2001–2003)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2005

Pascale Lehoux ,
Renaldo N. Battista ,
Alicia Granados ,
Pedro Gallo ,
Stéphanie Tailliez ,
Doug Coyle ,
Marco Marchetti ,
Piero Borgia  and
Gualtiero Ricciardi
Pascale Lehoux
Affiliation:
University of Montreal and Quebec Health Services and Technology Assessment Agency
Renaldo N. Battista
Affiliation:
University of Montreal
Alicia Granados
Affiliation:
University of Barcelona and Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research
Pedro Gallo
Affiliation:
University of Barcelona
Stéphanie Tailliez
Affiliation:
University of Montreal
Doug Coyle
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Marco Marchetti
Affiliation:
Catholic University of Rome
Piero Borgia
Affiliation:
Public Health Agency—Lazio Region, Rome
Gualtiero Ricciardi
Affiliation:
Catholic University of Rome
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: Despite a clear call for greater input from health technology assessment (HTA) in the areas of clinical practice and policy making, there are currently very few formal training programs. The objectives of our Consortium were to (i) develop a master's level program in HTA, (ii) test its content with a group of Canadian and European students, and (iii) evaluate the Program's strengths and weaknesses.

Objectives: This study presents the results of our evaluation of the first edition of the Master's Program (2001–2003).

Methods: The evaluation relied on (i) a self-administered student questionnaire for each course (n = 142), (ii) interviews with students (n = 10), and (iii) interviews with internship supervisors (n = 5).

Results: A vast majority of students were satisfied with the course content and particularly appreciated the exercises and materials presented in an intensive format. However, they needed more systematic feedback from faculty members and recommended increasing the methodology content. The six key characteristics of the program are (i) flexible format adapted to the needs of skilled professionals, (ii) continuous interaction between HTA users and producers, (iii) international academic and professional collaboration, (iv) partnership with HTA agencies, (v) global approach to evidence-based methods and practices, and (vi) multidisciplinary approach.

Conclusions: Despite the numerous organizational barriers inherent to creating an international program and several areas for improvement in the Program itself, the Ulysses Project was successful in attaining its objectives. Because there is a growing need for human resources with special training in HTA, further efforts need to be devoted to strengthening the international research capacity in HTA.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentHigher training and educationContinuous medical education
Type
RESEARCH REPORTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 104 - 112
Copyright
© 2005 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

Banta D, Perry S. 1997; A history of ISTAHC: A personal perspective on its first 10 years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 13: 430– 453.Google Scholar
Blight D, Davis D, Olsen A. 1999: The internationalisation of higher education. In: Harry K, ed. Higher education through open and distance learning. New York: Routledge; 15– 31.
Børlum Kristensen F, Gabbay J, Antes G, et al. 2002; Education and support networks for assessment of health interventions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 18: 423– 446.Google Scholar
Douw K, Vondeling H, Bakketeig LS, et al. 2002 HTA education and training in Europe. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 18: 808– 819.Google Scholar
France G. 2000 Health technology assessment in Italy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 459– 474.Google Scholar
Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, et al. 1994. The new production of knowledge. London: Sage Publications;
Granados A, Sampietro-Colom L, Asua J, Conde J, Vazquez Albertino R. 2000; Health technology assessment in Spain. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 16: 532– 559.Google Scholar
Jonsson E, Henshall C, Banta DH, Sampietro-Colom L. 2002; Executive summary of the ECHTA/ECAHI project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 18: 213– 217.Google Scholar
Lavis JN, Ross SE, Hurley JE, et al. 2002; Examining the role of health services research in public policy-making. Milbank Q. 80: 125– 154.Google Scholar
Lehoux P. 2002. Could new regulatory mechanisms be designed after a critical assessment of the value of health innovations? Discussion paper No. 37. Commission on the future of health care in Canada, chaired by R. Romanow,
Lomas J. 1993 Making clinical policy explicit. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 9: 11– 25.Google Scholar
Mason R. 1998. Globalising education: Trends and applications. New York: Routledge;
Mason R. 1999: The impact of telecommunications. In: Harry K, ed. Higher education through open and distance learning. New York: Routledge; 32– 47.
Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, et al. 1998 Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: A review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 2: 1– 274.Google Scholar
Patton MQ. 1982. Practical evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage;
Romanow R. 2002. Building on values: The future of health care in Canada. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada;