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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |