Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluations of public health interventions produced by health technology assessment agencies: A mapping review and analysis by type and evidence content.
Cyr, Pascale Renée; Jain, Vageesh; Chalkidou, Kalipso; Ottersen, Trygve; Gopinathan, Unni.
Afiliação
  • Cyr PR; Department of Community Medicine and Global Health, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1089 Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: p.r.cyr@medisin.uio.no.
  • Jain V; Public Health England, London, United Kingdom; Institute for Global Health, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
  • Chalkidou K; Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; Center for Global Development, London, United Kingdom.
  • Ottersen T; Department of Community Medicine and Global Health, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1089 Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway; Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PO Box 222 Skøyen, 0213 Oslo, Norway.
  • Gopinathan U; Cluster for Global Health, Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PO Box 222 Skøyen, 0213 Oslo, Norway.
Health Policy ; 125(8): 1054-1064, 2021 08.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34112508
OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessments (HTAs) have been suggested as a strategy to bridge the evidence-to-policy gap in public health. It is unclear to what extent HTAs have been prepared to assist decisions to implement public health interventions (PHIs). We aimed to describe the experience of HTA agencies by mapping, classifying, and analyzing the evidence content of HTAs of PHIs. METHODS: We systematically searched databases of 35 HTA agencies from 18 countries for evaluations of PHIs between 2008-2018. Interventions were classified using the International Classification of Health Interventions and the evidence content analysed with the INAHTA Product-Type-mark checklist. RESULTS: Only 1010 (9%) of HTAs were on PHIs. 500 (50%) publications targeted Body Systems and Functions, 302 (30%) Health-related Behaviours, 137 (14%) the Environment and 44 (4%) Activities and Participation Domains. Out of 734 publications perused, few met the criteria of full-HTAs (71;10%) or mini-HTAs (110;15%). Most were rapid reviews (420;57%). 72% of all reports came from only 6 countries. CONCLUSION: HTAs on PHIs were uncommon relative to clinical interventions. HTAs on population-based PHIs were less comprehensive in quality and rigor of the evidence. Countries with more resources and mature HTA-systems had done the most evaluations. Exploring the experiences of forerunners could help overcome barriers to evaluations of PHIs and exploit the full potential of HTAs to promote evidence-based public health.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Contexto em Saúde: 1_ASSA2030 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica / Saúde Pública Tipo de estudo: Health_technology_assessment / Prognostic_studies Aspecto: Determinantes_sociais_saude Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Health Policy Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Contexto em Saúde: 1_ASSA2030 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica / Saúde Pública Tipo de estudo: Health_technology_assessment / Prognostic_studies Aspecto: Determinantes_sociais_saude Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Health Policy Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article