Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T11:26:25.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COLLABORATIVE MODELS FOR THE JOINT PRODUCTION OF CORE HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE ASPECTS FOR THE JOINT WORK OF DIFFERENT EUROPEAN AGENCIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2015

Alessandra Lo Scalzo ,
Nicola Vicari ,
Mirella Corio ,
Maria Rosaria Perrini ,
Tom Jefferson ,
Francesca Gillespie  and
Marina Cerbo
Alessandra Lo Scalzo
Affiliation:
Agenzia Nazionale per i Servizi Sanitari Regionali (Age.na.s)
Nicola Vicari
Affiliation:
Agenzia Nazionale per i Servizi Sanitari Regionali (Age.na.s)
Mirella Corio
Affiliation:
Agenzia Nazionale per i Servizi Sanitari Regionali (Age.na.s)
Maria Rosaria Perrini
Affiliation:
Agenzia Nazionale per i Servizi Sanitari Regionali (Age.na.s)
Tom Jefferson
Affiliation:
Agenzia Nazionale per i Servizi Sanitari Regionali (Age.na.s)
Francesca Gillespie
Affiliation:
Agenzia Nazionale per i Servizi Sanitari Regionali (Age.na.s)
Marina Cerbo
Affiliation:
Agenzia Nazionale per i Servizi Sanitari Regionali (Age.na.s)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) is to make HTA agencies collaborate sharing methods and tools thus avoiding duplication of evaluative efforts and allowing resource savings. From 2010 to 2012, the activities of the network were carried out through EUnetHTA Joint Action 1 and Work Package 4 Strand B aimed at producing two Core HTAs with two main objectives: to test the Web based Core model and the collaborative working models. Our objective in this article is to give an historical record of the Work Package activities highlighting what worked and what did not in the collaboration of researchers’ groups coming from different agencies.

Methods: A retrospective description of all the steps for the joint production of the two Core HTAs is provided starting from the first step of selecting technologies of common interest. Primary researchers’ views on the whole process have been collected through a semi-structured telephonic interview supported by a questionnaire. Coordinators views were gathered during internal meetings and validated.

Results: Majority of respondents thought topic selection procedure was not clear and well managed. About collaborative models, small groups were seen to enable more exchange, whatever the model. According to coordinators, loss of expertise and experience during the production process, different languages, and novelty of the Online Tool were main barriers.

Conclusions: Lessons learned from this first experience in Joint Action 1 paved the path for the collaboration in Joint Action 2, as it allowed enhancements and changes in models of collaborations and coordination.

Keywords

Collaborative modelsJoint productions of Core HTAsPriority settingSelection of technologies
Type
Theme Submissions
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 5 , November 2014 , pp. 536 - 543
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

REFERENCES

1. Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, 9th March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare. http://www.cnas-pnc.ro/files/CELEX_32011L0024_EN_TXT.pdf (accessed December 9, 2014).Google Scholar
2. Banta, HD. Introduction to the EUR-ASSESS report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:133–143.Google Scholar
3. Banta, HD, Oortwijn, W. Conclusion: Health technology assessment and health care in the European Union. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:626–635.Google Scholar
4. Jonsson, E, Banta, D, Henshall, C, Sampietro-Colom, L. Executive summary of the ECHTA/ECAHI Project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:213–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Kristensen, FB. Development of European HTA: From Vision to EUnetHTA. Michael Q. 2012;9:147–156.Google Scholar
6. Kristensen, FB, Mäkelä, M, Neikter, SA, Rehnqvist, N, Håheim, LL, et al. European network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA: Planning, development, and implementation of a sustainable European network for Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:107–116.Google Scholar
7. EUnetHTA Project (2006–2008). General objectives, work packages, deliverables. http://www.eunethta.eu/activities/EUnetHTA%20Project%20(2006--08)/eunethta-project-2006–2008 (accessed November 7, 2014).Google Scholar
8. EUnetHTA Collaboration (2009). General objective. http://www.eunethta.eu/activities/EUnetHTA%20Collaboration%20%282009%29/eunethta-collaboration-2009 (accessed November 7, 2014).Google Scholar
9. EUnetHTA Joint Action 1 (2010–2012). General objectives, work packages, stakeholder involvement, deliverables. http://www.eunethta.eu/activities/eunethta-joint-action-2010--12/eunethta-joint-action-2010--12 (accessed November 7, 2014).Google Scholar
10. Lampe, K, Mäkelä, M, Garrido, MV. The HTA core model: A novel method for producing and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25 (Suppl 2):9–20.Google Scholar
11. Pasternack, I, Anttila, H, Mäkelä, M, Ikonen, T, Räsänen, P, et al. Testing the HTA Core Model: Experiences from two pilot projects. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;(Suppl 2)21–27.Google Scholar
12. Joint Action. European network for Health Technology Assessment. Final technical report. https://intranet.eunethta.eu//general/system/files/eunethta_ja_finaltechnicalreport2010_2012finalversion20130531_0.pdff (accessed November 13, 2014).Google Scholar
13. Cohen, D, Crabtree, B. “Qualitative Research Guidelines Project.” July 2006. http://www.qualres.org/HomeSemi-3629.html (accessed November 13, 2014).Google Scholar
14. Kelley, K, Clark, B, Brown, V, Sitzia, J. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15:261–226.Google Scholar
15. Principles of Qualitative Methods: Section 5. Data collection methods. http://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/research-methods/1d-qualitative-methods/section5-data-collection-methods (November 13, 2014).Google Scholar
16. Busse, R, Orvain, J, Velasco, M, Perleth, M, Drummond, M, et al. Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments: Working Group 4 report. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:361–422.Google Scholar
17. Moirano, F, Cerbo, M, Lo Scalzo, A. Establishing HTA in Italian Regions: The Institution of the Italian Network for Health Technology Assessment. HTAi 7th Annual Meeting Dublin 2010, Maximizing the value of HTA, Book of Abstracts.Google Scholar