Disruptive technologies in health care disenchanted: a systematic review of concepts and examples.

OBJECTIVES: To clarify the concept of disruptive technologies in health care, provide examples and consider implications of potentially disruptive technologies for health technology assessment (HTA). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of conceptual and empirical papers on healthcare technologies that are described as "disruptive." We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 2013 to April 2019 (updated in December 2021). Data extraction was done in duplicate by pairs of reviewers utilizing a data extraction form. A qualitative data analysis was undertaken based on an analytic framework for analysis of the concept and examples. Key arguments and a number of potential predictors of disruptive technologies were derived and implications for HTA organizations were discussed. RESULTS: Of 4,107 records, 28 were included in the review. Most of the papers included conceptual discussions and business models for disruptive technologies; only few papers presented empirical evidence. The majority of the evidence is related to the US healthcare system. Key arguments for describing a technology as disruptive include improvement of outcomes for patients, improved access to health care, reduction of costs and better affordability, shift in responsibilities between providers, and change in the organization of health care. A number of possible predictors for disruption were identified to distinguish these from "sustaining" innovations. CONCLUSIONS: Since truly disruptive technologies could radically change technology uptake and may modify provision of care patterns or treatment paths, they require a thorough evaluation of the consequences of using these technologies, including economic and organizational impact assessment and careful monitoring.

Demonstrating the influence of HTA: INAHTA member stories of HTA impact.

A central function of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies is the production of HTA reports to support evidence-informed policy and decision making. HTA agencies are interested in understanding the mechanisms of HTA impact, which can be understood as the influence or impact of HTA report findings on decision making at various levels of the health system. The members of the International Network of Agencies for HTA (INAHTA) meet at their annual Congress where impact story sharing is one important activity. This paper summarizes four stories of HTA impact that were finalists for the David Hailey Award for Best Impact Story.The methods to measure impact include: document review; claims analysis and review of reimbursement status; citation analysis; qualitative evaluation of stakeholders' views; and review of media response. HTA agency staff also observed changes in government activities and priorities based on the HTA. Impact assessment can provide information to improve the HTA process, for example, the value of patient and clinician engagement in the HTA process to better define the assessment question and literature reviews in a more holistic and balanced way.HTA reports produced by publicly funded HTA agencies are valued by health systems around the globe as they support decision making regarding the appropriate use, pricing, reimbursement, and disinvestment of health technologies. HTAs can also have a positive impact on information sharing between different levels of government and across stakeholder groups. These stories show how HTA can have a significant impact, irrespective of the health system and health technology being assessed.

The new definition of health technology assessment: A milestone in international collaboration.

BACKGROUND: An international joint task group co-led by the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) has developed a new and internationally accepted definition of HTA. METHODS: The task group, consisting of representatives of leading HTA networks, societies and global organizations, developed guiding principles for the process and followed an established consultation plan with the broader HTA community to develop the definition. RESULTS: The consensus achieved by the international joint task group brings the collective weight of the participating networks, societies, and organizations behind the new definition. CONCLUSION: The new definition of HTA is an historic achievement and it is offered to the current and emerging HTA world as a cornerstone reference for today and into the future.

The 'Top 10' Challenges for Health Technology Assessment: INAHTA Viewpoint.

The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) spans the globe as a network of 50 publicly-funded health technology assessment (HTA) agencies supporting health system decision making for 1.4 billion people in thirty countries. Agency members are non-profit HTA organizations that are part of, or directly support, regional or national governments. Recently, INAHTA surveyed its members to gather perspectives from agency leadership on the most important issues in HTA today. This paper describes the top 10 challenges identified by INAHTA members. Addressing these challenges requires a call for action from INAHTA member agencies and the many other actors involved in the HTA ecosystem. In opening this call for action, INAHTA will lead the way; however, a comprehensive undertaking from all players is needed to effectively address these challenges and to continue to evolve HTA in its role as a strong and effective contributor to health systems.

INSIGHTS FROM THE FRONT LINES: A COLLECTION OF STORIES OF HTA IMPACT FROM INAHTA MEMBER AGENCIES.

This mini-theme contains six stories of health technology assessment (HTA) impact from member agencies of The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), which were originally shared at the 2015 and 2016 INAHTA Congresses. The INAHTA impact story sharing is an innovative network activity where member agency representatives share experiences of HTA impact in a loosely structured story format. Through this process, members gain insights from other agencies on new ways of thinking about and approaching HTA impact assessment. A guide is provided to members to prepare their story, and the best story receives the David Hailey Award for Best Impact Story. This mini-theme contains stories of HTA impact from six member agencies in different parts of the world: the Health Assessment Division of the Ministry of Public Health (Uruguay), the Institute of Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (Germany), the Health Information and Quality Authority (Ireland), the Finnish Office for Health Technology Assessment (Finland), the Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical (Australia), and the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (Canada). Across the papers, common themes emerge about the importance of appropriate engagement of stakeholders and the broadening scope of HTA beyond reimbursement decision making.

CAPACITY BUILDING IN AGENCIES FOR EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT.

OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessment (HTA) yields information that can be ideally used to address deficiencies in health systems and to create a wider understanding of the impact of different policy considerations around technology reimbursement and use. The structure of HTA programs varies across different jurisdictions according to decision-maker needs. Moreover, conducting HTA requires specialized skills. Effective decision making should include multiple criteria (medical, economic, technical, ethical, social, legal, and cultural) and requires multi-disciplinary teams of experts working together to produce these assessments. A workshop explored the multi-disciplinary skills and competencies required to build an effective and efficient HTA team, with a focus on low- and middle-income settings. METHODS: This proceeding summarizes main points from a workshop on capacity building, drawing on presentations and group discussions among attendees including different points of view. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The workshop and thus this study would have benefited from a larger variety of stakeholders. Therefore, the conclusions arising from the workshop are not the opinion of a representative sample of HTA professionals. Nonetheless, organizations and speakers were carefully selected to provide a valuable approach to this theme. Thus, these proceedings highlight some of the gaps and needs in the education and training programs offered worldwide and calls for further investigation.

Health technology assessment, value-based decision making, and innovation.

BACKGROUND: Identifying treatments that offer value and value for money is becoming increasingly important, with interest in how health technology assessment (HTA) and decision makers can take appropriate account of what is of value to patients and to society, and in the relationship between innovation and assessments of value. METHODS: This study summarizes points from an Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Policy Forum discussion, drawing on presentations, discussions among attendees, and background papers. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Various perspectives on value were considered; most place patient health at the core of value. Wider elements of value comprise other benefits for: patients; caregivers; the health and social care systems; and society. Most decision-making systems seek to take account of similar elements of value, although they are assessed and combined in different ways. Judgment in decisions remains important and cannot be replaced by mathematical approaches. There was discussion of the value of innovation and of the effects of value assessments on innovation. Discussion also included moving toward "progressive health system decision making," an ongoing process whereby evidence-based decisions on use would be made at various stages in the technology lifecycle. Five actions are identified: (i) development of a general framework for the definition and assessment of value; development by HTA/coverage bodies and regulators of (ii) disease-specific guidance and (iii) further joint scientific advice for industry on demonstrating value; (iv) development of a framework for progressive licensing, usage, and reimbursement; and (v) promoting work to better adapt HTA, coverage, and procurement approaches to medical devices.

Using health technology assessment to support optimal use of technologies in current practice: the challenge of "disinvestment".

BACKGROUND: Health systems face rising patient expectations and economic pressures; decision makers seek to enhance efficiency to improve access to appropriate care. There is international interest in the role of HTA to support decisions to optimize use of established technologies, particularly in "disinvesting" from low-benefit uses. METHODS: This study summarizes main points from an HTAi Policy Forum meeting on this topic, drawing on presentations, discussions among attendees, and an advance background paper. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Optimization involves assessment or re-assessment of a technology, a decision on optimal use, and decision implementation. This may occur within a routine process to improve safety and quality and create "headroom" for new technologies, or ad hoc in response to financial constraints. The term "disinvestment" is not always helpful in describing these processes. HTA contributes to optimization, but there is scope to increase its role in many systems. Stakeholders may have strong views on access to technology, and stakeholder involvement is essential. Optimization faces challenges including loss aversion and entitlement, stakeholder inertia and entrenchment, heterogeneity in patient outcomes, and the need to demonstrate convincingly absence of benefit. While basic HTA principles remain applicable, methodological developments are needed better to support optimization. These include mechanisms for candidate technology identification and prioritization, enhanced collection and analysis of routine data, and clinician engagement. To maximize value to decision makers, HTA should consider implementation strategies and barriers. Improving optimization processes calls for a coordinated approach, and actions are identified for system leaders, HTA and other health organizations, and industry.

Creating a multidisciplinary low back pain guideline: anatomy of a guideline adaptation process.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: A collaborative, multidisciplinary guideline adaptation process was developed to construct a single overarching, evidence-based clinical practice guideline (CPG) for all primary care practitioners responsible for the management of low back pain (LBP) to curb the use of ineffective treatments and improve patient outcomes. METHODS: The adaptation strategy, which involved multiple committees and partnerships, leveraged existing knowledge transfer connections to recruit guideline development group (GDG) members and ensure that all stakeholders had a voice in the guideline development process. Videoconferencing was used to coordinate the large, geographically dispersed GDG. Information services and health technology assessment experts were used throughout the process to lighten the GDG's workload. RESULTS: The GDG reviewed seven seed guidelines and drafted an Alberta-specific guideline during 10 half-day meetings over a 12-month period. The use of ad hoc subcommittees to resolve uncertainties or disagreements regarding evidence interpretation expedited the process. Challenges were encountered in dealing with subjectivity, guideline appraisal tools, evidence source limitations and inconsistencies, and the lack of sophisticated evidence analysis inherent in guideline adaptation. Strategies for overcoming these difficulties are discussed. CONCLUSION: Guideline adaptation is useful when resources are limited and good-quality seed CPGs exist. The Ambassador Program successfully utilized existing stakeholder interest to create an overarching guideline that aligned guidance for LBP management across multiple primary care disciplines. Unforeseen challenges in guideline adaptation can be overcome with credible seed guidelines, a consistently applied and transparent methodology, and clear documentation of the subjective contextualization process. Multidisciplinary stakeholder input and an open, trusting relationship among all contributors will ensure that the end product is clinically meaningful.