THE ROLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND INFLUENCE OF NEW MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES IN MAKING EFFECTIVE DECISIONS. REVIEW
Relevance: International practice has shown that health technology assessment (HTA) is a comprehensive process of generalizing information about medical technologies aimed at optimizing decision-making, which considers all aspects of the application of technologies based on evidence-based medicine and pharmacoeconomics. A special role is given to ethical issues and social consequences, comparative research with methods of expert assessment of clinical and economic efficiency. Most HTA organizations are limited only to an assessment and a database of past research. But in many developed countries, international HTA organizations recommend additional research along with the main ones, develop clinical and methodological guidelines, identify barriers and opportunities for conducting research, methodology for assessing and influencing primary reports, improving the qualifications of specialists in the field of technology assessment, informatization and consulting stakeholders , scientific substantiation and preparation of technology peer review reports and other services.
Аim: Literature review of studies of the development and impact of health technology assessment in effective decision-making.
Search method: Research paper were searched on bases Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, in the electronic scientific libraries: e-Library, Cyberleninka. Inclusion criteria: search depth 11 years (2010-2021), original articles, literature reviews, methodological recommendations, guidance documents of international HTA, full text and open access publications in English and Russian. Exclusion criteria: articles and materials of low methodological quality, conference materials and publications of low methodological quality, with unclear conclusions.
We have included 45 foreign and domestic publications on the topic fr om selected 107 literature source, which passed the critical evaluation analysis and were fit for purpose.
Results and conclusions: A review of the literature showed that all stakeholders need to be informed in order for the results of HTAs to have an impact. Most HTAs conduct assessments as a formality, but a pronounced impact can be found in countries wh ere technology assessment organizations work closely with health care administrators. The effectiveness of the HTA process in health policy requires not only approaches in diagnosing and treating various diseases, but also a rational approach to decision-making that reduces government health care costs. Reasons for monitoring and impact of technologies are to determine the actual implementation of HTA recommendation in practice for future evaluation of effectiveness, creating feedback from the organization to support the promotion of orientation and dissemination of strategies, in other words, the monitoring of new technologies will allow organizations to make independent analysis and evaluation of the impact of technologies in health policy
Aiganym M. Askarova1, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6896-8697
Lyazzat K. Kosherbayeva1, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8376-4345
Adlet B. Tabarov2
1 Kazakh National Medical University named S.D. Asfendiyarov, Almaty city, the Republic of Kazakhstan;
2 Republican center for healthcare development, Nur-Sultan city, the Republic of Kazakhstan.
1. Государственная программа развития здравоохранения Республики Казахстан на 2020 – 2025 годы. Приказ утвержден постановлением Правительства РК. 2019. № 982. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/P1900000982. (дата обращения: 30.04.2021).
2. Гаитова К.К., Кошербаевна Л.К., Мауенова Д.К. Совершенствование системы оценки медицинских технологий. Методические рекомендации. Правила проведения оценки медицинских технологий. Астана. 2018. С. 25-35.
3. Колбин А.С., Павлыш А.В., Курылев А.А., Белоусов Д.Ю. Исследования сравнительной эффективности // Качественная Клиническая Практика. 2013;(1),70-77 https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/issledovaniya-sravnitelnoy-effektivnosti (дата обращения: 28.05.2021).
4. Костюк А.В., Аканов А.Б., & Альмадиева А.К. (2014). Оценка технологий здравоохранения как инструмент принятия решений. Наука о жизни и здоровье, (3), 22-26. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/otsenka-tehnologiy-zdravoohraneniya-kak-instrument-prinyatiya-resheniy (дата обращения: 25.03.2021).
5. Максимова Л.В. Международное сотрудничество в области оценки технологий здравоохранения // Медицинские технологии. Оценка и выбор, 2012. 3(9), 68-74. URL:https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/mezhdunarodnoe-sotrudnichestvo-v-oblasti-otsenki-tehnologiy-zdravoohraneniya (дата обращения: 03.05.2021).
6. Максимова Л.В., Омельяновский В.В., Авксентьева М.В. Последние достижения европейского проекта EUnetHTA // Медицинские технологии. Оценка и выбор, 2014. 2 (16), 36-41. URL:https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/poslednie-dostizheniya-evropeyskogo-proekta-eunethta (дата обращения: 25.05.2021).
7. Об утверждении Правил применения новых методов диагностики, лечения и медицинской реабилитации. Приказ утвержден МЗ РК. 2020. № ҚР ДСМ-208/2020. URL:https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/V2000021690. (дата обращения: 12.02.2021).
8. Предоставление качественных услуг здравоохранения: обязательное условие всеобщего охвата услугами здравоохранения на мировом уровне [Delivering quality health services: a global imperative for universal health coverage]. Женева: Всемирная организация здравоохранения, Организация экономического сотрудничества и развития и Международный банк реконструкции и развития / Всемирный банк; 2019. Лицензия: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. URL: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272465. (дата обращения: 14.05.2021).
9. Светый Л.И., Лопухова В.А., Тарасенко И.В., Климкин А.С. Применение системы оценки технологий здравоохранения в принятии эффективных управленческих решений. Медико-фармацевтический журнал «Пульс», 2013. 15 (1-4), 234-235. URL:https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/primenenie-sistemy-otsenki-tehnologiy-zdravoohraneniya-v-prinyatii-effektivnyh-upravlencheskih-resheniy (дата обращения: 25.05.2021).
10. Стародубов В.И., Каграманян И.Н., Хохлов А.Л. и др. Оценка медицинских технологий: международный опыт. М.: 2012. 104 с.
11. Barac R., Stein S., Bruce B. et al. Scoping review of toolkits as a knowledge translation strategy in health // BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 14, 121 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-014-0121-7.
12. Chalkidou K., Marten R., Cutler D., Culyer T., Smith R., et al. Health technology assessment in universal health coverage // Lancet. 2013 Dec 21;382(9910):e48-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62559-3. PMID: 24360390.
13. Choi B.C., Li L., Lu Y., Zhang L.R., Zhu Y., Pak A.W., Chen Y., Little J. Bridging the gap between science and policy: an international survey of scientists and policy makers in China and Canada. Implement Sci. 2016 Feb 6;11:16. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0377-7. PMID: 26852131; PMCID: PMC4744416.
14. Cohen G., Schroeder J., Newson R. et al. Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool. Health Res Policy Sys. 13, 3 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-13-3
15. Cook A., Streit E., Davage G. Involving clinical experts in prioritising topics for health technology assessment: a randomised controlled trial // BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 21;7(8):e016104. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016104. PMID: 28827250; PMCID: PMC5629658.
16. Garrido M.V., Kristensen F.B., Nielsen C.P., Busse R. HTA and shaping health policy in Europe. «Current state, problems and prospects». Observatory Study series. WHO from replacing the European Observatory on Health systems ana policies. 2010. Edition. 14. e.96-e105.
17. Glassman A, Chalkidou K. Priority-setting institutions in health. Building institutions for smarter public spending. Washington. DC: Center for Global Development; 2012. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239806973_Priority-Setting_in_Health_Building_Institutions_for_Smarter_Public_Spending. (дата обращения: 19.02.2021).
18. Gordijn B., ten Have H. International experiences with priority setting in healthcare. Med Health Care Philos. 2013 Aug;16(3):325-6. doi:10.1007/s11019-013-9496-y. PMID: 23756718.
19. Group of Eight. Excellence in Innovation: Research Impacting our Nation’s Future: Assessing the Benefits. Adelaide. SA: Australian Technology Network of Universities; 2012. http://www.atn.edu.au/newsroom/Docs/2012/ATN-Go8-Report-web.pdf. (дата обращения: 19.02.2021).
20. Hailey D. et al. HTA agencies and decision makers: An INAHTA guidance document. Stockholm: INAHTA. 2010. e.36-45. Available http://www.inahta.org. (дата обращения: 14.03.2021).
21. Hailey D. et al. The influence of Health Technology Assessment, a conceptual paper. INAHTA. Edmonton. 2014. Available http://www.inahta.org. (дата обращения: 25.02.2021).
22. Healthcare Improvement Scotland. Research into the impact of the SHTG 12-15. February 2012. http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/our_work/technologies_and_medicines/shtg_ad_hoc/evaluation_report.aspx. (дата обращения: 19.05.2021).
23. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Research Excellence Framework 2014: Overview Report by Main Panel A and Sub-panels 1 to 6. London: HEFCE; 2015. www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/expanel/-member/Main%20Panel%20A%20overview%20report.pdf. (дата обращения: 14.05.2021).
24. Holahan John, Blumberg Linda, Mirmirani Sam. An analysis of the Obama health care proposal. Obama Health Care Reform Proposal From An International Perspective. Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER). 2010. 8. 10.19030/jber.v8i1.654.
25. Jönsson B. Relative eff ectiveness and the European pharmaceutical market // Eur J Health Eco 2011; 12:97—102.
26. Karaca‐Mandic P., Town R. J., Wilcock A. The effect of physician and hospital market structure on medical technology diffusion // Health services research. 2017. Т. 52. №. 2. С. 579-598.
27. Kleijnen S., George E., Goulden S., et al. Relative Effectiveness Assessment of Pharmaceuticals: Similarities and Diff erences in 29 Jurisdictions // Value In Health 2012;15:954 —960;
28. Kristensen F.L. The HTA Core Model® 10 Years of Developing an International Framework to Share Multidimensional Value Assessment // Value in Health. 20. 244-250. 10.1016/j.jval.2016.12.010.
29. Li R., Hernandez-Villafuerte K., Towse A., Vlad I., Chalkidou K. Mapping Priority Setting in Health in 17 Countries Across Asia, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa // Health Syst Reform. 2016;2(1):71-83. doi:10.1080/23288604.2015.1123338.
30. Oduncu F.S. Priority-setting, rationing and cost-effectiveness in the German health care system // Med Health Care Philos. 2013 Aug;16(3):327-39. doi:10.1007/s11019-012-9423-7. PMID: 22692518.
31. Pavlovic M. Collaboration between EMA and EUnetHTA. Development of consensus on HTA methodologies. International experience of Health Technology Assessment and prospects of its implementation in Russia. Moscow, May 21, 2012. C.78-79
32. Peirson L., Ciliska D., Dobbins M., Mowat D. Building capacity for evidence informed decision making in public health: a case study of organizational change // BMC Public Health. 2012;12:137.
33. Longobardo L.M., Oliva-Moreno J., García-Armesto S., Hernández-Quevedo C. The Spanish long-term care system in transition: Ten years since the 2006 Dependency Act // Health Policy. 2016 Oct;120(10):1177-1182. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.08.012. Epub 2016 Sep 9. PMID: 27667653.
34. Raftery J., Hanney S., Greenhalgh T., Glover M., Blatch-Jones A. Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme // Health technology assessment. 2016, 20(76), pp.1-254.
35. Rajabi F. Evidence-informed health policy making: the role of policy. brief. // Int J Prev Med. 2012;3:596–8.
36. Schaefer Ramon et al. “PDG70 The Role of the Budget Impact: A Multivariate Analysis of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Outcomes by GBA/IQWiG in Germany and NICE in England” // Value in Health. 23 (2020): n. pag.
37. Schütte S., Acevedo P.N.M., Flahault A. Health systems around the world - a comparison of existing health system rankings // J Glob Health. 2018 Jun;8(1):010407. doi:10.7189/jogh.08.010407. PMID: 29564084; PMCID: PMC5857204.
38. Somerton T. Technology assessment: a systematic collaborative approach to assessing healthcare technologies for effective clinical decision-support in practice. 2015. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4527.5608.
39. Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment. Rosén, M., Werkö S. Does health technology assessment affect policy-making and clinical practice in sweden? // International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2014. 30(3), 265-272. doi:10.1017/S0266462314000270.
40. Tal O., Booch M., Bar-Yehuda S. Hospital staff perspectives towards health technology assessment: data from a multidisciplinary survey // Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Jul 23;17(1):72. doi:10.1186/s12961-019-0469-3. PMID: 31337398; PMCID: PMC6651984.
41. The HTA Core Model. Version 2.0 from November 28, 2013. https://corehta.info/model/HTACoreModel2.0.pdf. (дата обращения: 24.05.2021).
42. Uzochukwu B.S.C., Okeke C., O'Brien N., Ruiz F., Sombie I., Hollingworth S. Health technology assessment and priority setting for universal health coverage: a qualitative study of stakeholders' capacity, needs, policy areas of demand and perspectives in Nigeria // Global Health. 2020 Jul 8;16(1):58. doi:10.1186/s12992-020-00583-2. PMID: 32641066; PMCID: PMC7346669.
43. Vinck I., Lona M., Swartenbroekx N. Impact of the KCE reports published in 2009-2011 – Synthesis. Methodology (MET). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) 2013. KCE Reports 214CS. D/2013/10.273/98.
44. Walley T. Translating comparative effectiveness research into clinical practice: the UK experience // Drugs. 2012 Jan 22;72(2):163-70. doi:10.2165/11630860-000000000-00000. PMID: 22268389.
45. World Health Organization. Sixty-seventh World Health Assembly. WHA67.23. Agenda item 15.7. 24 May 2014. Health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. Available at URL:http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA67/A67_R23-en.pdf?ua=1. (дата обращения: 23.05.2021).
References [1-10]:
1. Gosudarstvennaya programma razvitiya zdravookhraneniya Respubliki Kazakhstan na 2020-2025 gody. [State health development program of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2020-2025] Prikaz utverzhden postanovleniyem Pravitelstva RK. [The order was approved by the government of Kazakhstan] 2019. №982. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/P1900000982. [in Russian] (application date: 28.05.2021).
2. Gaitova K.K., Kosherbayeva L.K., Mauenova D.K. Sovershenstvovanie sistemy otsenki meditsinskih technology. Metodicheskie recommendatsii [Improvement of the Health technology assessment system (guidelines)]. Pravila provedeniya otsenki meditsinskih technology. [Medical technology assessments rules]. Astana. 2018. C.25-35 [in Russian].
3. Kolbin A.S., Pavlysh A.V., Kurylev A.A., Belousov D.Y. Issledovaniya sravnitelnoi effectivnosti [Comparative effectiveness study]. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika [Quality clinical practice]. 2013. №1, 70-77. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/issledovaniya-sravnitelnoy-effektivnosti (application date: 28.05.2021). [in Russian].
4. Kostyuk A.V., Akhanov A.B., Almadiyeva A.K. Otsenka technology zdravookhraneniya kak instrument prinyatiya reshenii [Health technology assessment as a decision-making tool]. Vestnik AGIUV. 2014. №3, 22-26 https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/otsenka-tehnologiy-zdravoohraneniya-kak-instrument-prinyatiya-resheniy. [in Russian] (application date: 25.03.2021).
5. Maksimova L.V. Mezhdunarodnoe sotrudnichestvo v oblasti otsenki technology zdravookhraneniya [International collaboration in health technology assessment]. Meditsinskie technologii. Otsenka i vybor [Medical technology. Assessment and selection] 2012. №3(9), 68-74. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/mezhdunarodnoe-sotrudnichestvo-v-oblasti-otsenki-tehnologiy-zdravoohraneniya. [in Russian] (application date: 03.05.2021).
6. Maksimova L.V., Omelyanovskyi V.V., Avksentyeva M.V. Poslednie dostizheniya evropeiskogo proekta EUnetHTA [The latest achievements of the European project EUnetHTA]. Meditsinskie technologii. Otsenka i vybor. [Medical technology. Assessment and selection] 2014. №2(16). 36-41. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/poslednie-dostizheniya-evropeyskogo-proekta-eunethta. [in Russian] (application date: 25.05.2021).
7. Ob utverzhdenii Pravil primeneiya novykh metodov diagnostiki, lecheniya I meditsinskoy reabilitatsii. Prikaz utverzhden ministerstvom zdravookhraneniya RK [On the approval of the Rules for the Application of New Methods of Diagnostics, Treatment and Medical Rehabilitation. Order approved by the Ministry of Health of Kazakhstan] № QR DSM-208/2020. https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/V2000021690. [in Russian] (application date: 12.02.2021).
8. Predostavlenie kachestvennykh uslug zdravookhraneniya: obyazatel’noe usloviye vseobshego okhvata uslugami zdravoohraneniya na mirovom urovne. Geneva: VOZ, Organizatsiya economicheskogo sotrudnichestva I razvitiya I Mezhdunarodnyi bank reconstruktsii I razvitiya [Delivering quality health services: a global imperative for universal health coverage. Geneva: WHO, Organization for economic cooperation and development and International bank for reconstruction and development] / Vsemirnyi bank [The World Bank]; 2019. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272465. [in Russian] (application date: 14.05.2021).
9. Svetyi L.I., Lopukhova V.A., Tarasenko I.V., Klimkin A.S. Primenenie sistemy otsenki technology zdravoohraneniya v prinyatii effectivnikh upravlencheskikh reshenyi [Application of HTA system in making effective management decisions]. Mediko-pharmatsevticheskyi zhurnal “Puls” [medical-pharmaceutic journal “Puls”]. 2013. 15, (1-4), 234-235. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/primenenie-sistemy-otsenki-tehnologiy-zdravoohraneniya-v-prinyatii-effektivnyh-upravlencheskih-resheniy. [in Russian] (application date: 25.05.2021).
10. Starodubov V.I. and et.c. Otsenka meditsinskikh technology [HTA]. Mezhdunarodnyi opyt [International experience]. 2012. С. 104. [in Russian].
Number of Views: 131
Category of articles:
Reviews
Bibliography link
Askarova A.M., Kosherbayeva L.K., Tabarov A.B. The role of the development and influence of new medical technologies in making effective decisions. Review // Nauka i Zdravookhranenie [Science & Healthcare]. 2021, (Vol.23) 5, pp. 174-184. doi 10.34689/SH.2021.23.5.019Related publications:
INTERRELATION OF INTRAABDOMINAL HYPERTENSION AND MARKERS OF GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT INJURY IN PATIENTS WITH MULTIORGAN DYSFUNCTION
DRUG-INDUCED LIVER INJURY AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
QUALITY OF LIFE IN PRIMARY BILIARY CHOLANGITIS AND ITS ASSESSMENT
DIAGNOSTIC AND THERAPEUTIC LAPAROSCOPY FOR ABDOMINAL INJURIES. REVIEW
METHODS FOR SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN NUTRITIONAL STATUS ASSESSMENT: FOCUS ON ANTHROPOMETRIC PARAMETERS. A REVIEW.