Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Protocol

Health technology assessment of public health interventions: an analysis of characteristics and comparison of methods—study protocol

Authors: Tim Mathes, Gerald Willms, Stephanie Polus, Constance Stegbauer, Melanie Messer, Corinna Klingler, Heidi Ehrenreich, Dea Niebuhr, Georg Marckmann, Ansgar Gerhardus, Dawid Pieper

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Conducting a health technology assessment (HTA) of public health interventions (PHIs) poses some challenges. PHIs are often complex interventions, which affect the number and degree of interactions of the aspects to be assessed. Randomized controlled trials on PHIs are rare as they are difficult to conduct because of ethical or feasibility issues.
The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the methodological characteristics and to compare the applied assessment methods in HTAs on PHIs.

Methods

We will systematically search HTA agencies for HTAs on PHIs published between 2012 and 2016. We will identify the HTAs by screening the webpages of members of international HTA organizations. One reviewer will screen the list of HTAs on the webpages of members of international HTA organization, and a second review will double-check the excluded records. For this methodological review, we define a PHI as a population-based intervention on health promotion or for primary prevention of chronic or non-chronic diseases. Only full HTA reports will be included. At maximum, we will include a sample of 100 HTAs. In the case that we identify more than 100 relevant HTAs, we will perform a random selection. We will extract data on effectiveness, safety and economic as well as on social, cultural, ethical and legal aspects in a priori piloted standardized tables. We will not assess the risk of bias as we focus on exploring methodological features. Data extraction will be performed by one reviewer and verified by a second. We will synthesize data using tables and in a structured narrative way.

Discussion

Our analysis will provide a comprehensive and current overview of methods applied in HTAs on PHIs. We will discuss approaches that may be promising to overcome the challenges of evaluating PHIs.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference World Health Organization (WHO), 2015 Global Survey on Health Technology Assessment by National Authorities. 2015. World Health Organization (WHO), 2015 Global Survey on Health Technology Assessment by National Authorities. 2015.
2.
go back to reference Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(1):89–95.CrossRefPubMed Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(1):89–95.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Grimshaw JM, Haynes RB, Ouimet M, Raina P, et al. Supporting the use of health technology assessments in policy making about health systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(4):405–14.CrossRefPubMed Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Grimshaw JM, Haynes RB, Ouimet M, Raina P, et al. Supporting the use of health technology assessments in policy making about health systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(4):405–14.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Kelly M, Morgan A, Ellis S, Younger T, Huntley J, Swann C. Evidence based public health: a review of the experience of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of developing public health guidance in England. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(6):1056–62.CrossRefPubMed Kelly M, Morgan A, Ellis S, Younger T, Huntley J, Swann C. Evidence based public health: a review of the experience of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) of developing public health guidance in England. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(6):1056–62.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Petticrew M, Anderson L, Elder R, Grimshaw J, Hopkins D, Hahn R, et al. Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(11):1209–14.CrossRefPubMed Petticrew M, Anderson L, Elder R, Grimshaw J, Hopkins D, Hahn R, et al. Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(11):1209–14.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Petticrew M, Chalabi Z, Jones DR. To RCT or not to RCT: deciding when ‘more evidence is needed’ for public health policy and practice. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(5):391–6.CrossRefPubMed Petticrew M, Chalabi Z, Jones DR. To RCT or not to RCT: deciding when ‘more evidence is needed’ for public health policy and practice. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(5):391–6.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Akers J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Baba-Akbari A. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD); 2009. Akers J, Aguiar-Ibáñez R, Baba-Akbari A. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD); 2009.
8.
go back to reference Mathes T, Antoine SL, Prengel P, Buhn S, Polus S, Pieper D. Health technology assessment of public health interventiosn: a sysnthesis of methodological guidance. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(2):1–12. Mathes T, Antoine SL, Prengel P, Buhn S, Polus S, Pieper D. Health technology assessment of public health interventiosn: a sysnthesis of methodological guidance. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017;33(2):1–12.
9.
go back to reference Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Merlin T, Tamblyn D, Ellery B, IQA Group. What’s in a name? Developing definitions for common health technology assessment product types of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (inahta). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(4):430–7.CrossRefPubMed Merlin T, Tamblyn D, Ellery B, IQA Group. What’s in a name? Developing definitions for common health technology assessment product types of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (inahta). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(4):430–7.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference EU Joint Action on Chronic Diseases and Healthy Ageing Across the Life Cycle, Health promotion and primary prevention in 14 European countries: a comparative overview of key policies, approaches, gaps and needs. 2015. EU Joint Action on Chronic Diseases and Healthy Ageing Across the Life Cycle, Health promotion and primary prevention in 14 European countries: a comparative overview of key policies, approaches, gaps and needs. 2015.
13.
go back to reference U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Procedure Manual. 2015. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Procedure Manual. 2015.
14.
go back to reference Stephens JM, Handke B, Doshi JA. International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): does practice meet the principles proposed for good research. Comp Eff Res. 2012;2:29–44. Stephens JM, Handke B, Doshi JA. International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): does practice meet the principles proposed for good research. Comp Eff Res. 2012;2:29–44.
15.
go back to reference Burns, JBC, JB Brönneke, and B Hofmann, Guidance for assessing effectiveness, economic aspects, ethical aspects, socio-cultural aspects and legal aspects in complex technologies. 2016. Burns, JBC, JB Brönneke, and B Hofmann, Guidance for assessing effectiveness, economic aspects, ethical aspects, socio-cultural aspects and legal aspects in complex technologies. 2016.
16.
go back to reference Reeves BC, Higgins JPT, Ramsay C, Shea B, Tugwell P, Wells GA. An introduction to methodological issues when including non-randomised studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Research Synthesis Methods. 2013;4(1):1–11.CrossRefPubMed Reeves BC, Higgins JPT, Ramsay C, Shea B, Tugwell P, Wells GA. An introduction to methodological issues when including non-randomised studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Research Synthesis Methods. 2013;4(1):1–11.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):9–16.CrossRefPubMed Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):9–16.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Widrig D, Tag B. HTA and its legal issues: a framework for identifying legal issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(6):587–94.CrossRefPubMed Widrig D, Tag B. HTA and its legal issues: a framework for identifying legal issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(6):587–94.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
go back to reference Garrido Velasco, M, F Kristensen, C Nielsen, and R Busse, Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe: current status, challenges, and potential. 2008. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office Europe. Garrido Velasco, M, F Kristensen, C Nielsen, and R Busse, Health technology assessment and health policy-making in Europe: current status, challenges, and potential. 2008. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office Europe.
Metadata
Title
Health technology assessment of public health interventions: an analysis of characteristics and comparison of methods—study protocol
Authors
Tim Mathes
Gerald Willms
Stephanie Polus
Constance Stegbauer
Melanie Messer
Corinna Klingler
Heidi Ehrenreich
Dea Niebuhr
Georg Marckmann
Ansgar Gerhardus
Dawid Pieper
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0743-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Systematic Reviews 1/2018 Go to the issue