Implementation of the EU's Health Technology Assessment regulation: where does existing methods guidance require concretization and what are the relevant methodological options?

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Gregor Goetz, Stefan Schandelmaier, Reinhard Busse, Claudia Wild, Dimitra Panteli
{"title":"Implementation of the EU's Health Technology Assessment regulation: where does existing methods guidance require concretization and what are the relevant methodological options?","authors":"Gregor Goetz, Stefan Schandelmaier, Reinhard Busse, Claudia Wild, Dimitra Panteli","doi":"10.1017/S0266462324004793","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The EUnetHTA Core Model<sup>®</sup> is well-established in the HTA community. Some recommendations of corresponding guidance documents leave room for alternative methodological choices. Considering the new HTA regulation (HTAR), we aimed to identify needs for concretization (NCs) in EUnetHTA guidance and provide indicative methodological options.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We carried out a qualitative document analysis and structured group discussion. Twenty-two EUnetHTA documents were screened using transparent criteria. Identified NCs were classified into topics according to the PRISMA statement and presented to Austrian HTA practitioners (<i>n</i> = 11) during a structured group discussion. Participants rated NC's importance. To identify potential solutions, selected key handbooks for generic (Cochrane) and HTA-specific (IQWIG/NICE) evidence synthesis were systematically reviewed and matching content was charted against the NCs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-two topics with varying numbers of NCs were identified, twenty-six during the screening process, and six from the group discussion. Most of the topics related to evidence synthesis methods (nine topics), evidence eligibility criteria (nine topics), risk of bias (three topics), and certainty assessment (three topics). Other topics related to information sources, search strategy, data collection process, data items, effect measures, and reporting bias. One or more methodological approaches and recommendations could be identified for each identified topic from the included methodological handbooks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our analysis identified a need for concretization in some EUnetHTA guidelines. The structured overview of methodological options may support HTA doers in adapting and applying the guidelines to the national and local practical context.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":"41 1","pages":"e9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11811951/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462324004793","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The EUnetHTA Core Model® is well-established in the HTA community. Some recommendations of corresponding guidance documents leave room for alternative methodological choices. Considering the new HTA regulation (HTAR), we aimed to identify needs for concretization (NCs) in EUnetHTA guidance and provide indicative methodological options.

Methods: We carried out a qualitative document analysis and structured group discussion. Twenty-two EUnetHTA documents were screened using transparent criteria. Identified NCs were classified into topics according to the PRISMA statement and presented to Austrian HTA practitioners (n = 11) during a structured group discussion. Participants rated NC's importance. To identify potential solutions, selected key handbooks for generic (Cochrane) and HTA-specific (IQWIG/NICE) evidence synthesis were systematically reviewed and matching content was charted against the NCs.

Results: Thirty-two topics with varying numbers of NCs were identified, twenty-six during the screening process, and six from the group discussion. Most of the topics related to evidence synthesis methods (nine topics), evidence eligibility criteria (nine topics), risk of bias (three topics), and certainty assessment (three topics). Other topics related to information sources, search strategy, data collection process, data items, effect measures, and reporting bias. One or more methodological approaches and recommendations could be identified for each identified topic from the included methodological handbooks.

Conclusions: Our analysis identified a need for concretization in some EUnetHTA guidelines. The structured overview of methodological options may support HTA doers in adapting and applying the guidelines to the national and local practical context.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
15.60%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care serves as a forum for the wide range of health policy makers and professionals interested in the economic, social, ethical, medical and public health implications of health technology. It covers the development, evaluation, diffusion and use of health technology, as well as its impact on the organization and management of health care systems and public health. In addition to general essays and research reports, regular columns on technology assessment reports and thematic sections are published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信