» Articles » PMID: 35065545

Developing a How-to-Guide for Health Technology Reassessment: "The HTR Playbook"

Overview
Date 2022 Jan 23
PMID 35065545
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: To develop a knowledge translation (KT) tool that will provide guidance to stakeholders actively planning or considering implementation of a health technology reassessment (HTR) initiative.

Methods: The KT tool is an international and collaborative endeavour between HTR researchers in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Evidence from a meta-review of documented international HTR experiences and approaches provided the conceptual framing for the KT tool. The purpose, audience, format, and overall scope and content of the tool were established through iterative discussions and consensus. An initial version of the KT tool was beta-tested with an international community of relevant stakeholders (i.e., potential users) at the Health Technology Assessment International 2018 annual meeting.

Results: An open access workbook, referred to as the HTR playbook, was developed. As a KT tool, the HTR playbook is intended to simplify the complex HTR planning process by navigating users step-by-step through 6 strategic domains: characteristics of the candidate health technology (), stakeholders to engage (), potential facilitators and/or barriers within the policy context (), strategic use of different levers and tools (), unintended consequences (), and metrics and methods for monitoring and evaluation ().

Conclusion: The HTR playbook is intended to enhance a user's ability to successfully complete a HTR by helping them systematically consider the different elements and approaches to achieve the right care for the patient population in question.

Citing Articles

History of trastuzumab: a case study in health technology reassessment and natural disinvestment in Veneto Region.

Becchetti A, Martini A, Scroccaro G, Joppi R Front Pharmacol. 2024; 15:1406351.

PMID: 39166105 PMC: 11333330. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1406351.


Deliberative process of health technology reassessment by health technology assessment agency in Korea.

Shin S, Kim Y, Choi J, Park J Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2024; 40(1):e28.

PMID: 38738417 PMC: 11569900. DOI: 10.1017/S026646232400014X.


Real-world evidence in the reassessment of oncology therapies: payer perceptions from five countries.

Bharmal M, Katsoulis I, Chang J, Graham A, Stavropoulou A, Jhingran P Future Oncol. 2024; 20(21):1467-1478.

PMID: 38573230 PMC: 11441014. DOI: 10.2217/fon-2023-1004.

References
1.
Elshaug A, McWilliams J, Landon B . The value of low-value lists. JAMA. 2013; 309(8):775-6. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.828. View

2.
Elshaug A, Moss J, Littlejohns P, Karnon J, Merlin T, Hiller J . Identifying existing health care services that do not provide value for money. Med J Aust. 2009; 190(5):269-73. DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02394.x. View

3.
Mayer J, Nachtnebel A . DISINVESTING FROM INEFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES: LESSONS LEARNED FROM CURRENT PROGRAMS. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015; 31(6):355-62. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462315000641. View

4.
Soril L, Seixas B, Mitton C, Bryan S, Clement F . Moving low value care lists into action: prioritizing candidate health technologies for reassessment using administrative data. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018; 18(1):640. PMC: 6094474. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3459-1. View

5.
Scott I, Duckett S . In search of professional consensus in defining and reducing low-value care. Med J Aust. 2015; 203(4):179-81. DOI: 10.5694/mja14.01664. View