Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-25T21:30:08.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection of new health technologies for assessment aimed at informing decision making: A survey among horizon scanning systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2006

Karla Douw  and
Hindrik Vondeling
Karla Douw
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
Hindrik Vondeling
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Uncertainty is pervasive in decision making on new health technologies; therefore, some countries have put systems in place to support decision makers with timely information. An important, but as yet undocumented, determinant of the potential value for decision making of these so-called horizon scanning systems (HSSs) is how the most significant health technologies are selected.

Methods: All thirteen member organizations of EuroScan, a collaborative network for HSSs, were surveyed and interviewed on how they prioritize technologies for assessment.

Results: The majority of HSSs directly serves a customer. Some customers actively request early assessments of new health technologies, thereby diminishing the need for priority setting for the HSSs. All systems express a concern to miss an important technology and/or to select an unimportant technology. Almost all HSSs use explicit selection criteria, but these criteria hardly ever are operationalized. The number of criteria used varies, but costs and health benefit of the technology are always taken into account. The process of reaching a final decision is implicit, undocumented in all but one system, and is based on agreement by consensus.

Conclusions: The process of making the final decision on which technologies to assess can be improved by applying existing criteria more consistently and transparently. Current practice does not safeguard against missing an important technology. This finding is probably most important to act upon for systems with customers that do not actively request assessment of specific technologies.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentHorizon scanning systemsPriority settingNew and emerging health technologiesDecision making
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 177 - 183
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

Apolone G, Joppi R, Bertele V, Garattini S. 2005 Ten years of marketing approvals of anticancer drugs in Europe: Regulatory policy and guidance documents need to find a balance between different pressures. Br J Cancer. 93: 504– 509.Google Scholar
Banta HD, Gelijns AC. 1994 The future and health care technology: Implication of a system for early identification. World Health Stat Q. 47: 140– 148.Google Scholar
Banta HD, Gelijns AC. 1998 An early system for the identification and assessment of future health care technology: The Dutch STG project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 4: 607– 612.Google Scholar
Brower V. 2005. Fast tracking drugs to patients. Drug approval agencies are frequently criticised for either being too slow or too fast. EMBO reports vol. 3, no 1. 2002. Available at: http://www. nature.com/embor/journal/v3/n1/full/embor239.html.Accessed: December 7
Carlsson P. 2004 Health Technology Assessment and priority setting for health policy in Sweden. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1: 44– 54.Google Scholar
CEDIT. 2005. Committee for evaluation and diffusion of innovative technologies (CEDIT). Available at: http://cedit.aphp.fr/english/index_present.html. Accessed: December 7
Douw K, Vondeling H, Sørensen J, Jørgensen T, Sigmund H. 2004 The future should not take us by surprise: Preparation of an early warning system in Denmark. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 342– 350.Google Scholar
Dowie J. Personal reflections. In: Oliver A, ed. 2003. Health care priority setting. Implications for health inequality. Proceedings from a meeting of the Health Equity Network. London: The Nuffield Trust;
Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D. 2005 Time-trends in health technology assessments: An analysis of developments in composition of international health technology assessments from 1989 to 2002. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 4: 492– 498.Google Scholar
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA). 2005. European Medicines Agency proposes new, faster scientific advice procedure. Press release. London: September 22, 2005. Available at: http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/sciadvice/31176205en.pdf. Accessed: December 7
European Information Network on New and Changing Health Technologies. 2005. EuroScan: Status report. January 2005. Available at: http://www.euroscan.bham.ac.uk/WebEuroScanReport.pdf. Accessed: December 7
EuroScan. 2005. Terminology and understanding of the activity. Terminology. Available at: http://www.euroscan.bham.ac.uk/terminology.htm. Accessed: December 7
EuroScan. 2005. Terminology and understanding of the activity. Prioritisation criteria. Available at: http://www.euroscan.bham.ac.uk/terminology.htm. Accessed: December 7
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2005. Guidance for industry. Fast track drug development programs—designation, development, and application review. July 2004 (revision). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5645fnl.htm#_Toc77574439. Accessed: December 7
Henshall C, Oortwijn W, Steven A, Granados A, Banta D, eds. 1997 Priority setting for Health Technology Assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 13: 144– 185.
Jørgensen T, Carlsson P. 1998 Introduction. Special section: Early identification and assessment of emerging health technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 14: 603– 606.Google Scholar
Martin DK, Pater JL, Singer PA. 2001 Priority-setting decisions for new cancer drugs: A qualitative case study. Lancet. 358: 1676– 1681.Google Scholar
Mowatt G, Thomson M-A, Grimshaw J, Grant A. 1998 Implementing early warning messages on emerging health technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 14: 663– 670.Google Scholar
National Horizon Scanning Centre. 2005. Providing advance notice of significant new and emerging health technologies to the Department of Health, England. Available at: http://www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/horizon/. Accessed: December 7
Oortwijn WJ, Ament AJHA, Vondeling H. 1996 Use of societal criteria in evaluation of medical technology assessment research proposals in The Netherlands: Development and testing of a checklist. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitswissenschaften. J Public Health. 4: 5– 19.Google Scholar
Oortwijn WJ, Vondeling H, Barneveld T, Vugt Van C, Bouter LM. 2002 Priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: Principles and practice. Health Policy. 62: 227– 242.Google Scholar
Packer C. 1999 Fidan D. Horizon scanning is important for emerging health technologies. BMJ. 319: 1005.Google Scholar
Singer PA, Martin DK, Giacomini M, Purdy L. 2000 Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: Qualitative case study. BMJ. 25: 1316– 1318.Google Scholar
Simpson S, Hyde C, Cook A, Packer C, Stevens A. 2004 Assessing the accuracy of forecasting: Applying standard diagnostic assessment tools to a health technology early warning system. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 20: 381– 384.Google Scholar