制定和实施快速卫生技术评估报告价值框架:在资源受限环境下加强循证决策。

IF 3.1 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Andrea Alcaraz, Fernando Argento, Veronica Alfie, Sebastián García Martí, Ariel Bardach, Agustín Ciapponi, Federico Augustovski, Andres Pichon-Riviere
{"title":"制定和实施快速卫生技术评估报告价值框架:在资源受限环境下加强循证决策。","authors":"Andrea Alcaraz, Fernando Argento, Veronica Alfie, Sebastián García Martí, Ariel Bardach, Agustín Ciapponi, Federico Augustovski, Andres Pichon-Riviere","doi":"10.1017/S0266462325100160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Value frameworks play a crucial role in bridging the gap between evidence and decision making in health care, particularly in settings with limited resources as low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). In this study, we present the development of a value framework (VF) targeted to provide coverage recommendations in rapid health technology assessment reports (rHTA) as well as its first 5 years of implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed an exhaustive literature search with the aim to identify existing VFs and their dimensions followed by the generation of a VF proposal through a mixed methods, qualitative-quantitative approach including a Delphi panel to weigh the criteria and correlate them with the subsequent recommendations. To describe its implementation, we present the results of 264 rHTA reports from 2017 to 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The value framework has three main domains (quality of evidence, net benefit, and economic impact). We adapted widely used methodologies for quality of evidence and net benefit domains. The economic impact domain was the most complex to assess, so an ad hoc method was developed. Analysis of 265 HTAs revealed the distribution of recommendations across different criteria and technology types. Most were for drugs (40.5 percent) or therapeutic procedures (36 percent). With a five-category final recommendation, 0.8 percent were favorable, 19.7 percent were uncertain, and 44 percent were unfavorable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The VF demonstrated its versatility and practicality in meeting the needs of rHTA audience, and can facilitate evidence-informed decision making. This VF serves as a valuable tool for conducting adaptive rHTAs and supports decision-making processes in Argentina and similar LMIC contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":14467,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","volume":" ","pages":"e58"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12390745/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and implementation of a value framework for rapid health technology assessment reports: enhancing evidence-informed decision making in resource-constrained settings.\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Alcaraz, Fernando Argento, Veronica Alfie, Sebastián García Martí, Ariel Bardach, Agustín Ciapponi, Federico Augustovski, Andres Pichon-Riviere\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0266462325100160\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Value frameworks play a crucial role in bridging the gap between evidence and decision making in health care, particularly in settings with limited resources as low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). In this study, we present the development of a value framework (VF) targeted to provide coverage recommendations in rapid health technology assessment reports (rHTA) as well as its first 5 years of implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed an exhaustive literature search with the aim to identify existing VFs and their dimensions followed by the generation of a VF proposal through a mixed methods, qualitative-quantitative approach including a Delphi panel to weigh the criteria and correlate them with the subsequent recommendations. To describe its implementation, we present the results of 264 rHTA reports from 2017 to 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The value framework has three main domains (quality of evidence, net benefit, and economic impact). We adapted widely used methodologies for quality of evidence and net benefit domains. The economic impact domain was the most complex to assess, so an ad hoc method was developed. Analysis of 265 HTAs revealed the distribution of recommendations across different criteria and technology types. Most were for drugs (40.5 percent) or therapeutic procedures (36 percent). With a five-category final recommendation, 0.8 percent were favorable, 19.7 percent were uncertain, and 44 percent were unfavorable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The VF demonstrated its versatility and practicality in meeting the needs of rHTA audience, and can facilitate evidence-informed decision making. This VF serves as a valuable tool for conducting adaptive rHTAs and supports decision-making processes in Argentina and similar LMIC contexts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12390745/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/S0266462325100160\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462325100160","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

摘要

目标:价值框架在弥合卫生保健领域证据与决策之间的差距方面发挥着至关重要的作用,特别是在资源有限的中低收入国家。在本研究中,我们提出了一个价值框架(VF)的发展,旨在为快速卫生技术评估报告(rHTA)及其前5年的实施提供覆盖建议。方法:我们进行了详尽的文献检索,目的是确定现有的VF及其维度,然后通过混合方法生成VF建议,定性-定量方法包括德尔菲小组来权衡标准并将其与随后的建议相关联。为了描述其实施情况,我们展示了2017年至2022年264份rHTA报告的结果。结果:价值框架有三个主要领域(证据质量、净效益和经济影响)。我们对证据质量和净效益领域采用了广泛使用的方法。经济影响领域的评估是最复杂的,因此开发了一种特别的方法。对265个hta的分析揭示了不同标准和技术类型的推荐分布。大多数是药物(40.5%)或治疗程序(36%)。在5个类别的最终建议中,0.8%的人赞成,19.7%的人不确定,44%的人不赞成。结论:VF在满足rHTA受众需求方面具有通用性和实用性,可促进循证决策。该VF是开展适应性rhta的宝贵工具,并支持阿根廷和类似低收入和中等收入国家的决策过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Development and implementation of a value framework for rapid health technology assessment reports: enhancing evidence-informed decision making in resource-constrained settings.

Development and implementation of a value framework for rapid health technology assessment reports: enhancing evidence-informed decision making in resource-constrained settings.

Development and implementation of a value framework for rapid health technology assessment reports: enhancing evidence-informed decision making in resource-constrained settings.

Development and implementation of a value framework for rapid health technology assessment reports: enhancing evidence-informed decision making in resource-constrained settings.

Objectives: Value frameworks play a crucial role in bridging the gap between evidence and decision making in health care, particularly in settings with limited resources as low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). In this study, we present the development of a value framework (VF) targeted to provide coverage recommendations in rapid health technology assessment reports (rHTA) as well as its first 5 years of implementation.

Methods: We performed an exhaustive literature search with the aim to identify existing VFs and their dimensions followed by the generation of a VF proposal through a mixed methods, qualitative-quantitative approach including a Delphi panel to weigh the criteria and correlate them with the subsequent recommendations. To describe its implementation, we present the results of 264 rHTA reports from 2017 to 2022.

Results: The value framework has three main domains (quality of evidence, net benefit, and economic impact). We adapted widely used methodologies for quality of evidence and net benefit domains. The economic impact domain was the most complex to assess, so an ad hoc method was developed. Analysis of 265 HTAs revealed the distribution of recommendations across different criteria and technology types. Most were for drugs (40.5 percent) or therapeutic procedures (36 percent). With a five-category final recommendation, 0.8 percent were favorable, 19.7 percent were uncertain, and 44 percent were unfavorable.

Conclusion: The VF demonstrated its versatility and practicality in meeting the needs of rHTA audience, and can facilitate evidence-informed decision making. This VF serves as a valuable tool for conducting adaptive rHTAs and supports decision-making processes in Argentina and similar LMIC contexts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信