Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Despite the documented benefits of using health technology assessments (HTA) to inform resource allocation in health care systems, HTA remains underused, especially in low- and middle-income countries. A survey of global health practitioners was conducted to reveal the top reasons (“excuses”) that they had heard from colleagues, policymakers or other stakeholders for not using HTA in their settings.
Methods
There were 193 respondents to the survey. Most responses were from individuals in research organisations (37%), ministries of health (27%) and other government agencies (14%). Participants came from Southeast Asia (40%), the Western Pacific (30%), Africa (15%), Europe (7%), the Americas (7%) and the Eastern Mediterranean region (2%).
Results
The top five reasons encountered by respondents related to lack of data, lack of technical skills for HTA, the technocratic nature of the work, the lack of explicit decision rules and the perception that HTA puts a “price on life”.
Conclusions
This study aimed to understand and address the top reasons for not using HTA. They fall into three categories: (1) misconceptions about HTA; (2) feasibility issues; and (3) values, attitudes and politics. Previous literature has shown that these reasons can be addressed when identified, and even imperfect HTA analyses can provide useful information to a decision-maker.
Funder
Thailand Research Fund
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Department for International Development
Rockefeller Foundation
Government of Japan
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference31 articles.
1. Barlow E, Morton A, Dabak S, Engels S, Isaranuwatchai W, Teerawattananon Y, et al. What is the value of explicit priority setting for health interventions? A simulation study. ResearchGate. 2021. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23649.63841.
2. Dabak SV, Teerawattananon Y, Win T. From design to evaluation: applications of health technology assessment in Myanmar and lessons for low or lower middle-income countries. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019;35(6):461–6.
3. Sharma M, Teerawattananon Y, Luz A, Li R, Rattanavipapong W, Dabak S. Institutionalizing evidence-informed priority setting for universal health coverage: lessons from Indonesia. Inq J Med Care Organ Provis Financ. 2020;57:46958020924920 (32513029).
4. Tantivess S, Chalkidou K, Tritasavit N, Teerawattananon Y. Health technology assessment capacity development in low- and middle-income countries: experiences from the international units of HITAP and NICE. F100Research. 2017;6:2119.
5. Chambers JD, Lord J, Cohen JT, Neumann PJ, Buxton MJ. Illustrating potential efficiency gains from using cost-effectiveness evidence to reallocate medicare expenditures. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2013;16(4):629–38.
Cited by
21 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献