Cargando…

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

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 d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mathes, Tim, Willms, Gerald, Polus, Stephanie, Stegbauer, Constance, Messer, Melanie, Klingler, Corinna, Ehrenreich, Heidi, Niebuhr, Dea, Marckmann, Georg, Gerhardus, Ansgar, Pieper, Dawid
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5966916/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29792224
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0743-4
_version_ 1783325535126945792
author Mathes, Tim
Willms, Gerald
Polus, Stephanie
Stegbauer, Constance
Messer, Melanie
Klingler, Corinna
Ehrenreich, Heidi
Niebuhr, Dea
Marckmann, Georg
Gerhardus, Ansgar
Pieper, Dawid
author_facet Mathes, Tim
Willms, Gerald
Polus, Stephanie
Stegbauer, Constance
Messer, Melanie
Klingler, Corinna
Ehrenreich, Heidi
Niebuhr, Dea
Marckmann, Georg
Gerhardus, Ansgar
Pieper, Dawid
author_sort Mathes, Tim
collection PubMed
description 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0743-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5966916
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59669162018-05-24 Health technology assessment of public health interventions: an analysis of characteristics and comparison of methods—study protocol Mathes, Tim Willms, Gerald Polus, Stephanie Stegbauer, Constance Messer, Melanie Klingler, Corinna Ehrenreich, Heidi Niebuhr, Dea Marckmann, Georg Gerhardus, Ansgar Pieper, Dawid Syst Rev Protocol 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0743-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-05-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5966916/ /pubmed/29792224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0743-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Protocol
Mathes, Tim
Willms, Gerald
Polus, Stephanie
Stegbauer, Constance
Messer, Melanie
Klingler, Corinna
Ehrenreich, Heidi
Niebuhr, Dea
Marckmann, Georg
Gerhardus, Ansgar
Pieper, Dawid
Health technology assessment of public health interventions: an analysis of characteristics and comparison of methods—study protocol
title Health technology assessment of public health interventions: an analysis of characteristics and comparison of methods—study protocol
title_full Health technology assessment of public health interventions: an analysis of characteristics and comparison of methods—study protocol
title_fullStr Health technology assessment of public health interventions: an analysis of characteristics and comparison of methods—study protocol
title_full_unstemmed Health technology assessment of public health interventions: an analysis of characteristics and comparison of methods—study protocol
title_short Health technology assessment of public health interventions: an analysis of characteristics and comparison of methods—study protocol
title_sort health technology assessment of public health interventions: an analysis of characteristics and comparison of methods—study protocol
topic Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5966916/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29792224
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0743-4
work_keys_str_mv AT mathestim healthtechnologyassessmentofpublichealthinterventionsananalysisofcharacteristicsandcomparisonofmethodsstudyprotocol
AT willmsgerald healthtechnologyassessmentofpublichealthinterventionsananalysisofcharacteristicsandcomparisonofmethodsstudyprotocol
AT polusstephanie healthtechnologyassessmentofpublichealthinterventionsananalysisofcharacteristicsandcomparisonofmethodsstudyprotocol
AT stegbauerconstance healthtechnologyassessmentofpublichealthinterventionsananalysisofcharacteristicsandcomparisonofmethodsstudyprotocol
AT messermelanie healthtechnologyassessmentofpublichealthinterventionsananalysisofcharacteristicsandcomparisonofmethodsstudyprotocol
AT klinglercorinna healthtechnologyassessmentofpublichealthinterventionsananalysisofcharacteristicsandcomparisonofmethodsstudyprotocol
AT ehrenreichheidi healthtechnologyassessmentofpublichealthinterventionsananalysisofcharacteristicsandcomparisonofmethodsstudyprotocol
AT niebuhrdea healthtechnologyassessmentofpublichealthinterventionsananalysisofcharacteristicsandcomparisonofmethodsstudyprotocol
AT marckmanngeorg healthtechnologyassessmentofpublichealthinterventionsananalysisofcharacteristicsandcomparisonofmethodsstudyprotocol
AT gerhardusansgar healthtechnologyassessmentofpublichealthinterventionsananalysisofcharacteristicsandcomparisonofmethodsstudyprotocol
AT pieperdawid healthtechnologyassessmentofpublichealthinterventionsananalysisofcharacteristicsandcomparisonofmethodsstudyprotocol