Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to obtain information on rapid health technology assessments (HTAs) prepared by members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). METHODS: A questionnaire was prepared, drawing on earlier INAHTA documents for recording HTA impact. A request for responses was sent to member agencies, seeking information on rapid HTA reports prepared during 2006. RESULTS: Responses were provided on fifteen rapid HTAs, which covered both new and widely distributed technologies. The most common purpose for the HTAs (n = 8) was to inform coverage decisions, but other reasons included capital funding, formulary decisions, referral for treatment, program operation, guideline formulation, influence on routine practice, and indications for further research. All the rapid HTAs were considered by the agencies to have had some influence. The most common indications of influence were consideration by the decision maker, use of the HTA as reference material (both n = 10), and acceptance of recommendations or conclusions (n = 8). CONCLUSIONS: Rapid HTAs are used for a broad range of technologies, to inform several types of decision, and are effective in informing the decision-making process. Supplementation of their findings by further assessments will be appropriate in some cases.
Hide

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To consider the impact of rapid health technology assessments undertaken as part of a program in a provincial healthcare system in response to urgent requests for advice. METHODS: Review of the development and preparation of 20 rapid assessment reports, communication with decision makers within the healthcare system, and appraisal of data subsequent to preparation of the reports. RESULTS: Fourteen of the assessments were judged to have had an influence on policy and other decisions, as judged by responses from those who had requested advice. Another four were considered to have provided guidance, while having less immediate influence on decisions, and two others had no apparent impact. Quality of the assessments was considered acceptable, on the basis of literature that subsequently became available and from comments received. CONCLUSIONS: These brief reports are considered to be a useful component of a health technology assessment program. However, they should be regarded as provisional appraisals and followed up with more detailed evaluation where possible.
Hide

Abstract

BACKGROUND:Achieving quality improvement (QI) aims often requires local innovation. Without objective evidence review, innovators may miss previously tested approaches, rely on biased information, or use personal preferences in designing and implementing local QI programmes. AIM:To develop a practical, responsive approach to evidence review for QI innovations aimed at both achieving the goals of the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) and developing an evidence-based QI culture. DESIGN:Descriptive organisational case report. METHODS:As part of a QI initiative to develop and spread innovations for achieving the Veterans Affairs (VA) PCMH (termed Patient Aligned Care Team, or PACT), we involved a professional evidence review team (consisting of review experts, an experienced librarian, and administrative support) in responding to the evidence needs of front-line primary care innovators. The review team developed a systematic approach to responsive innovation evidence review (RIER) that focused on innovator needs in terms of time frame, type of evidence and method of communicating results. To assess uptake and usefulness of the RIERs, and to learn how the content and process could be improved, we surveyed innovation leaders. RESULTS:In the first 16 months of the QI initiative, we produced 13 RIERs on a variety of topics. These were presented as 6-15-page summaries and as slides at a QI collaborative. The RIERs focused on innovator needs (eg, topic overviews, how innovations are carried out, or contextual factors relevant to implementation). All 17 innovators who responded to the survey had read at least one RIER; 50% rated the reviews as very useful and 31%, as probably useful. CONCLUSIONS:These responsive evidence reviews appear to be a promising approach to integrating evidence review into QI processes.
Hide

Abstract

The use of evidence to inform public health decisions varies—in some cases, such as tobacco control, the evidence is clear and so the links are stronger between research, policy and practice. In other contexts, such as obesity prevention, the situation is more complex, and so the gap between research, policy and practice can sometimes look like a vast crevasse.1 The use of evidence appears to be challenged by two key factors—the application of the available evidence to the policy context, and the challenges imposed on decision-makers regarding the implementation of effective programs.
Hide

Abstract

Should the same evidence lead to the same decision outcomes in different decision-making contexts? In order to improve comprehension of this issue, this study considers how context influences evidence utilization in the development of health policy recommendations. We used an embedded multiple case study design to study how four expert groups formulated policy recommendations for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in Ontario, Canada. We interviewed expert group members and analysed meeting agendas/minutes, interim/final reports and other case-related documents. Our analyses revealed varying policy objectives; the use, neglect, or overextended consideration of three key decision support tools; the varying skills/abilities of expert group members in using different decision support tools; the varying impact of effect modifiers, resource constraints and political interests; and the differing development/consideration of context-specific evidence to address uncertainty in the external decision-making context. While more work is needed to determine if these findings are generalizable beyond cancer screening policy, we believe the central challenge for evidence-based policy is not to develop international evidence, but rather to develop more systematic, rigorous, and global methods for identifying, interpreting, and applying evidence in different decision-making contexts. Our analyses suggest that identification of evidence must distinguish between different policy objectives in order to link a broad conceptualization of evidence to appropriate policy questions. Interpretation of evidence must acknowledge the varying nature of evidence for different policy objectives, balancing existing emphasis on evidentiary quality with more sophisticated methods for assessing the generalizability of evidence. The application of evidence must also acknowledge different policy objectives, appropriately employing rule-based grading schemes and agreement-based consensus methods that are sensitive to the nature of the evidence and contexts involved.
Hide

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this project was to evaluate local decision support tools used in the Danish hospital sector from a theoretical and an empirical point of view. METHODS: The use of local decision support was evaluated through questionnaires sent to all county health directors, all hospital managers, and all heads of clinical departments in cardiology, orthopedic surgery, and intensive care. In addition, respondents were asked to submit whatever decision support tools they were using (including mini-HTAs, other forms or checklists, and special procedures for decision making concerning new health technologies). A theoretical analysis of the decision support tools (decision theory) was performed as well as a comparison with the business case method used in private companies. Finally, the Danish mini-HTA was compared with foreign production and use of HTA and HTA-like assessments as local decision support. RESULTS: The response rate was high (87 percent, 94 percent, 85 percent, respectively). We collected sixty different forms (of which forty-nine were mini-HTAs) and twenty variants of written procedures. We found theoretical and empirical evidence that local involvement in the process of making the HTA could be important for the use of the results from the HTA and for the process of implementing the new technology. CONCLUSIONS: Doing mini-HTA in hospitals seems to balance the need for quality and depth with the limited time and resources for assessment.
Hide

Abstract

Since evidence-based decision making is increasingly gaining acceptance among German health care authorities the need for evidence-based support for time-critical decisions becomes obvious. The best method to identify and summarize the available evidence is the conduct of systematic reviews of the literature. However, generally systematic reviews are not applicable in matters of urgency, because of their time consuming preparation. Concepts for "rapid reviews" are urgently required which ensure that these reviews still produce reliable results. The article proposes strategies to accelerate the preparation of a systematic review and discusses their possible influences on the conclusions of the review. Research efforts are needed to clarify which of the accelerations actually yield valid results.
Hide

Abstract

Evidence-based methodologies are used to synthesise systematic high-quality evidence and were first applied in clinical practice. Evidence-based public health, however, is still in its early stages. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control sought the insight of European organisations working and providing services in the field of public health on current practices, capacities, perceptions and predictions of evidence-based public health. A survey was sent to 76 organisations. A response rate of 36% was achieved, representing 27 organisations from 16 countries. Systematic reviews were the most commonly offered service, followed by health technology assessments and rapid assessments. Of 25 respondents, 13 believed that evidence-based methodologies were poorly integrated into public health. The main perceived barriers to the further development of evidence-based public health included ‘lack of formalised structure or system’, ‘resource constraints’ ‘lack of understanding of evidence-based methodologies by policy makers’ and ‘lack of data’. Nevertheless, 22 of 27 respondents believed that evidence-based methodologies will play an increasingly important role in public health in future. However, several barriers need to be overcome. Consistent frameworks and consensus on best practices were identified as the most pressing requirements. Steps should be taken to address these barriers and facilitate integration and ultimately public health policies.
Hide

Abstract

Systematic reviews have the potential to promote knowledge exchange between researchers and decision-makers. Review planning requires engagement with evidence users to ensure preparation of relevant reviews, and well-conducted reviews should provide accessible and reliable synthesis to support decision-making. Yet, systematic reviews are not routinely referred to by decision-makers, and innovative approaches to improve the utility of reviews is needed. Evidence synthesis for healthy public policy is typically complex and methodologically challenging. Although not lessening the value of reviews, these challenges can be overwhelming and threaten their utility. Using the interrelated principles of relevance, rigor, and readability, and in light of available resources, this article considers how utility of evidence synthesis for healthy public policy might be improved.
Hide

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In November 2008, the Secretary of State for Health (England) commissioned an independent review to propose effective strategies for reducing health inequalities. Review task groups were given just 3 months to make preliminary evidence-based recommendations. In this paper, we describe the methodology used, and the recommendations made, by the group tasked with inequalities in priority public health conditions. METHODS: A series of rapid literature reviews of the policy-relevant international evidence base was undertaken. Quantitative studies of any design, which looked at the effects on health inequalities, the social gradient or overall population health effects, of interventions designed to address the social determinants of selected public health priority conditions were examined. Recommendations were distilled using a Delphi approach. RESULTS: Five key policy proposals were made: reduce smoking in the most deprived groups; improve availability of and access to healthier food choices amongst low income groups; improve the early detection and treatment of diseases; introduce a minimum price per unit for alcohol and improve the links between physical and mental health care. CONCLUSION: The combination of rapid review and Delphi distillation produced a shortlist of evidence-based recommendations within the allocated time frame. There was a dearth of robust evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions we examined: our proposals had to be based on extrapolation from general population health effects. Extensive, specific and robust evidence is urgently needed to guide policy and programmes. In the meantime, our methodology provides a reasonably sound and pragmatic basis for evidence-based policy-making.
Hide

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to identify decision-makers' preferences for the transfer and exchange of research knowledge. This article is focused on how the participants define evidence-based decision-making and their preferences for receiving research evidence to integrate into the decision-making process. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 16 Ontario public health decision-makers from six Ontario public health units in this fundamental qualitative descriptive study. The sample included nine program managers, six directors, and one Medical Officer of Health. Participants were asked to define the term evidence-based decision-making and identify preferred research dissemination strategies. The interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and coded for emerging concepts. RESULTS: Participants defined evidence-based decision-making as a process whereby multiple sources of information were consulted before making a decision concerning the provision of services. To facilitate integration of research evidence into the decision-making process, public health administrators appreciate receiving, in both electronic and hard copy, systematic reviews, executive summaries of research, and clear statements of implications for practice from health service researchers. CONCLUSIONS: Although consensus exists among participants concerning the definition of evidence based public health decision-making, ongoing efforts are required to continue to promote the use of research evidence in program planning and public health policy. It is also important to continue to improve the ease with which public health decision-makers access systematic reviews, as well as to ensure the relevance and applicability of the results to the practice setting.
Hide