Rapid cost-effectiveness analysis: hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis for patients with acute kidney injury in Rwanda.

BACKGROUND: To ensure the long-term sustainability of its Community-Based Health Insurance scheme, the Government of Rwanda is working on using Health Technology Assessment (HTA) to prioritize its resources for health. The objectives of the study were to rapidly assess (1) the cost-effectiveness and (2) the budget impact of providing PD versus HD for patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) in the tertiary care setting in Rwanda. METHODS: A rapid cost-effectiveness analysis for patients with AKI was conducted to support prioritization. An 'adaptive' HTA approach was undertaken by adjusting the international Decision Support Initiative reference case for time and data constraints. Available local and international data were used to analyze the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of peritoneal dialysis (PD) compared with hemodialysis (HD) in the tertiary hospital setting. RESULTS: The analysis found that HD was slightly more effective and slightly more expensive in the payer perspective for most patients with AKI (aged 15-49). HD appeared to be cost-effective when only comparing these two dialysis strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 378,174 Rwandan francs (RWF) or 367 United States dollars (US$), at a threshold of 0.5 × gross domestic product per capita (RWF 444,074 or US$431). Sensitivity analysis found that reducing the cost of HD kits would make HD even more cost-effective. Uncertainty regarding PD costs remains. Budget impact analysis demonstrated that reducing the cost of the biggest cost driver, HD kits, could produce significantly more savings in five years than switching to PD. Thus, price negotiations could significantly improve the efficiency of HD provision. CONCLUSION: Dialysis is costly and covered by insurance in many countries for the financial protection of patients. This analysis enabled policymakers to make evidence-based decisions to improve the efficiency of dialysis provision.

The use of cost-effectiveness analysis for health benefit package design - should countries follow a sectoral, incremental or hybrid approach?

BACKGROUND: Countries around the world are increasingly rethinking the design of their health benefit package to achieve universal health coverage. Countries can periodically revise their packages on the basis of sectoral cost-effectiveness analyses, i.e. by evaluating a broad set of services against a 'doing nothing' scenario using a budget constraint. Alternatively, they can use incremental cost-effectiveness analyses, i.e. to evaluate specific services against current practice using a threshold. In addition, countries may employ hybrid approaches which combines elements of sectoral and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis - a country may e.g. not evaluate the comprehensive set of all services but rather relatively small sets of services targeting a certain condition. However, there is little practical guidance for countries as to which kind of approach they should follow. METHODS: The present study was based on expert consultation. We refined the typology of approaches of cost-effectiveness analysis for benefit package design, identified factors that should be considered in the choice of approach, and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among experts over the course of several review rounds. RESULTS: Sectoral cost-effectiveness analysis is especially suited in contexts with large allocative inefficiencies in current service provision and can, in theory, realize large efficiency gains. However, it may be challenging to implement a comprehensive redesign of the package in practice. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis is especially relevant in contexts where specific new services may impact the sustainability of the health system. It may potentially support efficiency improvement, but its focus has typically been on new services while existing inefficiencies remain unchallenged. The use of hybrid approach may be a way forward to address the strengths and weaknesses of sectoral and incremental analysis areas. Such analysis may be especially useful to target disease areas with suspected high inefficiencies in service provision, and would then make good use of the available research capacity and be politically rewarding. However, disease-specific analyses bear the risk of not addressing resource allocation inefficiencies across disease areas. CONCLUSIONS: Countries should carefully select their approach of cost-effectiveness analyses for benefit package design, based on their decision-making context.

We need to talk about values: a proposed framework for the articulation of normative reasoning in health technology assessment.

It is acknowledged that health technology assessment (HTA) is an inherently value-based activity that makes use of normative reasoning alongside empirical evidence. But the language used to conceptualise and articulate HTA's normative aspects is demonstrably unnuanced, imprecise, and inconsistently employed, undermining transparency and preventing proper scrutiny of the rationales on which decisions are based. This paper - developed through a cross-disciplinary collaboration of 24 researchers with expertise in healthcare priority-setting - seeks to address this problem by offering a clear definition of key terms and distinguishing between the types of normative commitment invoked during HTA, thus providing a novel conceptual framework for the articulation of reasoning. Through application to a hypothetical case, it is illustrated how this framework can operate as a practical tool through which HTA practitioners and policymakers can enhance the transparency and coherence of their decision-making, while enabling others to hold them more easily to account. The framework is offered as a starting point for further discussion amongst those with a desire to enhance the legitimacy and fairness of HTA by facilitating practical public reasoning, in which decisions are made on behalf of the public, in public view, through a chain of reasoning that withstands ethical scrutiny.

Impact of information and deliberation on the consistency of preferences for prioritization in health care - evidence from discrete choice experiments undertaken alongside citizens' juries.

BACKGROUND: Public preferences are an important consideration for priority-setting. Critics suggest preferences of the public who are potentially naïve to the issue under consideration may lead to sub-optimal decisions. We assessed the impact of information and deliberation via a Citizens' Jury (CJ) or preference elicitation methods (Discrete Choice Experiment, DCE) on preferences for prioritizing access to bariatric surgery. METHODS: Preferences for seven prioritization criteria (e.g. obesity level, obesity-related comorbidities) were elicited from three groups who completed a DCE: (i) participants from two CJs (n = 28); (ii) controls who did not participate in the jury (n = 21); (iii) population sample (n = 1,994). Participants in the jury and control groups completed the DCE pre- and post-jury. DCE data were analyzed using multinomial logit models to derive "priority weights" for criteria for access to surgery. The rank order of criteria was compared across groups, time points and CJ recommendations. RESULTS: The extent to which the criteria were considered important were broadly consistent across groups and were similar to jury recommendations but with variation in the rank order. Preferences of jurors but not controls were more differentiated (that is, criteria were assigned a greater range of priority weights) after than before the jury. Juror preferences pre-jury were similar to that of the public but appeared to change during the course of the jury with greater priority given to a person with comorbidity. Conversely, controls appeared to give a lower priority to those with comorbidity and higher priority to treating very severe obesity after than before the jury. CONCLUSION: Being informed and undertaking deliberation had little impact on the criteria that were considered to be relevant for prioritizing access to bariatric surgery but may have a small impact on the relative importance of criteria. CJs may clarify underlying rationale but may not provide substantially different prioritization recommendations compared to a DCE.

Public preferences are an important consideration for priority-setting. However, some people worry that if the public doesn't know much about the issues, their opinions might not lead to the best decisions. To make these decisions, we used two different methods to get people's opinions: Deliberative methods and preference elicitation methods. Deliberative methods gather a small group of people and have them discuss an issue in detail, whereas preference elicitation methods seek opinions through surveying a large group of people.In this paper, we assessed the impact of information and deliberation via a deliberative method (Citizens' Jury, CJ) or a preference elicitation method (Discrete Choice Experiment, DCE) on preferences for prioritising access to bariatric surgery. We used data from two CJs and a DCE focussed on prioritising access to the surgery, to find out if the opinions of those in the CJs changed or stayed the same after they heard information from experts and discussed the topic.The results showed that the important criteria were rather similar across the groups, but the order of importance was a bit different. The people in CJs had more varied opinions after discussing it, while those who didn't discuss it had less varied opinions. The participants in CJs also prioritized those with other health problems more than they did at the beginning.This study helps us understand how different methods can be used to get the public's opinions on healthcare decisions.

The Evolving Nature of Health Technology Assessment: A Critical Appraisal of NICE's New Methods Manual.

OBJECTIVES: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recently completed a review of its methods for health technology assessment, involving a 2-stage public consultation. We appraise proposed methodological changes and analyze key decisions. METHODS: We categorize all changes proposed in the first consultation as "critical," "moderate" or "limited" updates, considering the importance of the topic and the degree of change or the level of reinforcement. Proposals were followed through the review process, for their inclusion, exclusion, or amendment in the second consultation and the new manual. RESULTS: The end-of-life value modifier was replaced with a new "disease severity" modifier and other potential modifiers were rejected. The usefulness of a comprehensive evidence base was emphasized, clarifying when nonrandomized studies can be used, with further guidance on "real-world" evidence developed separately. A greater degree of uncertainty was accepted in circumstances when evidence generation raised challenges, in particular for children, rare diseases, and innovative technologies. For some topics, such as health inequality, discounting, unrelated healthcare costs, and value of information, significant changes were possibly warranted, but NICE decided not to make any revisions at present. CONCLUSION: Most of the changes to NICE's health technology assessment methods are appropriate and modest in impact. Nevertheless, some decisions were not well justified and further research is needed on several topics, including investigation of societal preferences. Ultimately, NICE's role of protecting National Health Services resources for valuable interventions that can contribute toward improving overall population health must be safeguarded, without accepting weaker evidence.

International Partnerships to Develop Evidence-informed Priority Setting Institutions: Ten Years of Experience from the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI).

All health systems must set priorities. Evidence-informed priority-setting (EIPS) is a specific form of systematic priority-setting which involves explicit consideration of evidence to determine the healthcare interventions to be provided. The international Decision Support Initiative (iDSI) was established in 2013 as a collaborative platform to catalyze faster progress on EIPS, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. This article summarizes the successes, challenges, and lessons learned from ten years of iDSI partnering with countries to develop EIPS institutions and processes. This is a thematic documentary analysis, structured by iDSI's theory of change, extracting successes, challenges, and lessons from three external evaluations and 19 internal reports to funders. We identified three phases of iDSI's work-inception (2013-15), scale-up (2016-2019), and focus on Africa (2019-2023). iDSI has established a global platform for coordinating EIPS, advanced the field, and supported regional networks in Asia and Africa. It has facilitated progress in securing high-level commitment to EIPS, strengthened EIPS institutions, and developed capacity for health technology assessments. This has resulted in improved decisions on service provision, procurement, and clinical care. Major lessons learned include the importance of sustained political will to develop EIPS; a clear EIPS mandate; inclusive governance structures appropriate to health financing context; politically sensitive and country-led support to EIPS, taking advantage of policy windows for EIPS reforms; regional networks for peer support and long-term sustainability; utilization of context appropriate methods such as adaptive HTA; and crucially, donor-funded global health initiatives supporting and integrating with national EIPS systems, not undermining them.

Supply-Side Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds: Questions for Evidence-Based Policy.

There is growing interest in cost-effectiveness thresholds as a tool to inform resource allocation decisions in health care. Studies from several countries have sought to estimate health system opportunity costs, which supply-side cost-effectiveness thresholds are intended to represent. In this paper, we consider the role of empirical estimates of supply-side thresholds in policy-making. Recent studies estimate the cost per unit of health based on average displacement or outcome elasticity. We distinguish the types of point estimates reported in empirical work, including marginal productivity, average displacement, and outcome elasticity. Using this classification, we summarise the limitations of current approaches to threshold estimation in terms of theory, methods, and data. We highlight the questions that arise from alternative interpretations of thresholds and provide recommendations to policymakers seeking to use a supply-side threshold where the evidence base is emerging or incomplete. We recommend that: (1) policymakers must clearly define the scope of the application of a threshold, and the theoretical basis for empirical estimates should be consistent with that scope; (2) a process for the assessment of new evidence and for determining changes in the threshold to be applied in policy-making should be created; (3) decision-making processes should retain flexibility in the application of a threshold; and (4) policymakers should provide support for decision-makers relating to the use of thresholds and the implementation of decisions stemming from their application.

What is the value of explicit priority setting for health interventions? A simulation study.

Many countries seek to secure efficiency in health spending through establishing explicit priority setting institutions (PSIs). Since such institutions divert resources from frontline services which benefit patients directly, it is legitimate and reasonable to ask whether they are worth the money. We address this question by comparing, through simulation, the health benefits and costs from implementing two alternative funding approaches - one scenario in which an active PSI enables cost-effectiveness-threshold based funding decisions, and a counterfactual scenario where there is no PSI. We present indicative results for one dataset from the United Kingdom (published in 2015) and one from Malawi (published in 2018), which show that the threshold rule reliably resulted in decreased health system costs, improved health benefits, or both. Our model is implemented in Microsoft Excel and designed to be user-friendly, and both the model and a user guide are made publicly available, in order to enable others to parameterise the model based on the local setting. Although inevitably stylised, we believe that our modelling and results offer a valid perspective on the added value of explicit PSIs.

Recalibrating the notion of modelling for policymaking during pandemics.

COVID-19 disease models have aided policymakers in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) with many critical decisions. Many challenges remain surrounding their use, from inappropriate model selection and adoption, inadequate and untimely reporting of evidence, to the lack of iterative stakeholder engagement in policy formulation and deliberation. These issues can contribute to the misuse of models and hinder effective policy implementation. Without guidance on how to address such challenges, the true potential of such models may not be realised. The COVID-19 Multi-Model Comparison Collaboration (CMCC) was formed to address this gap. CMCC is a global collaboration between decision-makers from LMICs, modellers and researchers, and development partners. To understand the limitations of existing COVID-19 disease models (primarily from high income countries) and how they could be adequately support decision-making in LMICs, a desk review of modelling experience during the COVID-19 and past disease outbreaks, two online surveys, and regular online consultations were held among the collaborators. Three key recommendations from CMCC include: A 'fitness-for-purpose' flowchart, a tool that concurrently walks policymakers (or their advisors) and modellers through a model selection and development process. The flowchart is organised around the following: policy aims, modelling feasibility, model implementation, model reporting commitment. Holmdahl and Buckee (2020) A 'reporting standards trajectory', which includes three gradually increasing standard of reports, 'minimum', 'acceptable', and 'ideal', and seeks collaboration from funders, modellers, and decision-makers to enhance the quality of reports over time and accountability of researchers. Malla et al. (2018) A framework for "collaborative modelling for effective policy implementation and evaluation" which extends the definition of stakeholders to funders, ground-level implementers, public, and other researchers, and outlines how each can contribute to modelling. We advocate for standardisation of modelling processes and adoption of country-owned model through iterative stakeholder participation and discuss how they can enhance trust, accountability, and public ownership to decisions.

Developing and piloting a context-specified ethics framework for health technology assessment: the South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage approach.

OBJECTIVES: While ethics has been identified as a core component of health technology assessment (HTA), there are few examples of practical, systematic inclusion of ethics analysis in HTA. Some attribute the scarcity of ethics analysis in HTA to debates about appropriate methodology and the need for ethics frameworks that are relevant to local social values. The "South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage" (SAVE-UHC) project models an approach that countries can use to develop HTA ethics frameworks that are specific to their national contexts. METHODS: The SAVE-UHC approach consisted of two phases. In Phase I, the research team convened and facilitated a national multistakeholder working group to develop a provisional ethics framework through a collaborative, engagement-driven process. In Phase II, the research team refined the model framework by piloting it through three simulated HTA appraisal committee meetings. Each simulated committee reviewed two case studies of sample health interventions: opioid substitution therapy and either a novel contraceptive implant or seasonal influenza immunization for children under five. RESULTS: The methodology was fit-for-purpose, resulting in a context-specified ethics framework and producing relevant findings to inform application of the framework for the given HTA context. CONCLUSIONS: The SAVE-UHC approach provides a model for developing, piloting, and refining an ethics framework for health priority-setting that is responsive to national social values. This approach also helps identify key facilitators and challenges for integrating ethics analysis into HTA processes.

The Use of Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds for Evaluating Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries From 2015 to 2020: A Review.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-informed priority setting, in particular cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), can help target resources better to achieve universal health coverage. Central to the application of CEA is the use of a cost-effectiveness threshold. We add to the literature by looking at what thresholds have been used in published CEA and the proportion of interventions found to be cost-effective, by type of threshold. METHODS: We identified CEA studies in low- and middle-income countries from the Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry that were published between January 1, 2015, and January 6, 2020. We extracted data on the country of focus, type of interventions under consideration, funder, threshold used, and recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 230 studies with a total 713 interventions were included in this review; 1 to 3× gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was the most common type of threshold used in judging cost-effectiveness (84.3%). Approximately a third of studies (34.2%) using 1 to 3× GDP per capita applied a threshold at 3× GDP per capita. We have found that no study used locally developed thresholds. We found that 79.3% of interventions received a recommendation as "cost-effective" and that 85.9% of studies had at least 1 intervention that was considered cost-effective. The use of 1 to 3× GDP per capita led to a higher proportion of study interventions being judged as cost-effective compared with other types of thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the wide concerns about the use of 1 to 3× GDP per capita, this threshold is still widely used in the literature. Using this threshold leads to more interventions being recommended as "cost-effective." This study further explore alternatives to the 1 to 3× GDP as a decision rule.

Developing a How-to-Guide for Health Technology Reassessment: "The HTR Playbook".

BACKGROUND: To develop a knowledge translation (KT) tool that will provide guidance to stakeholders actively planning or considering implementation of a health technology reassessment (HTR) initiative. METHODS: The KT tool is an international and collaborative endeavour between HTR researchers in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Evidence from a meta-review of documented international HTR experiences and approaches provided the conceptual framing for the KT tool. The purpose, audience, format, and overall scope and content of the tool were established through iterative discussions and consensus. An initial version of the KT tool was beta-tested with an international community of relevant stakeholders (i.e., potential users) at the Health Technology Assessment International 2018 annual meeting. RESULTS: An open access workbook, referred to as the HTR playbook, was developed. As a KT tool, the HTR playbook is intended to simplify the complex HTR planning process by navigating users step-by-step through 6 strategic domains: characteristics of the candidate health technology (The Stats and Projections), stakeholders to engage (The Team), potential facilitators and/or barriers within the policy context (The Playing Field), strategic use of different levers and tools (The Offensive Plays), unintended consequences (The Defensive Plays), and metrics and methods for monitoring and evaluation (Winning the Game). CONCLUSION: The HTR playbook is intended to enhance a user's ability to successfully complete a HTR by helping them systematically consider the different elements and approaches to achieve the right care for the patient population in question.

Antimicrobial Resistance: Is Health Technology Assessment Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem?

Antimicrobial resistance is a serious challenge to the success and sustainability of our healthcare systems. There has been increasing policy attention given to antimicrobial resistance in the last few years, and increased amounts of funding have been channeled into funding for research and development of antimicrobial agents. Nevertheless, manufacturers doubt whether there will be a market for new antimicrobial technologies sufficient to enable them to recoup their investment. Health technology assessment (HTA) has a critical role in creating confidence that if valuable technologies can be developed they will be reimbursed at a level that captures their true value. We identify 3 deficiencies of current HTA processes for appraising antimicrobial agents: a methods-centric approach rather than problem-centric approach for dealing with new challenges, a lack of tools for thinking about changing patterns of infection, and the absence of an approach to epidemiological risks. We argue that, to play their role more effectively, HTA agencies need to broaden their methodological tool kit, design and communicate their analysis to a wider set of users, and incorporate long-term policy goals, such as containing resistance, as part of their evaluation criteria alongside immediate health gains.

An Introduction to the Main Types of Economic Evaluations Used for Informing Priority Setting and Resource Allocation in Healthcare: Key Features, Uses, and Limitations.

Economic evidence is increasingly being used for informing health policies. However, the underlining principles of health economic analyses are not always fully understood by non-health economists, and inappropriate types of analyses, as well as inconsistent methodologies, may be being used for informing health policy decisions. In addition, there is a lack of open access information and methodological guidance targeted to public health professionals, particularly those based in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive and accessible introduction to economic evaluations for public health professionals with a focus on LMIC settings. We cover the main principles underlining the most common types of full economic evaluations used in healthcare decision making in the context of priority setting (namely cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses), and outline their key features, strengths and weaknesses. It is envisioned that this will help those conducting such analyses, as well as stakeholders that need to interpret their output, gain a greater understanding of these methods and help them select/distinguish between the different approaches. In particular, we highlight the need for greater awareness of the methods used to place a monetary value on the health benefits of interventions, and the potential for such estimates to be misinterpreted. Specifically, the economic benefits reported are typically an approximation, summarising the health benefits experienced by a population monetarily in terms of individual preferences or potential productivity gains, rather than actual realisable or fiscal monetary benefits to payers or society.

Avoiding health technology assessment: a global survey of reasons for not using health technology assessment in decision making.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the documented benefits of using health technology assessments (HTA) to inform resource allocation in health care systems, HTA remains underused, especially in low- and middle-income countries. A survey of global health practitioners was conducted to reveal the top reasons ("excuses") that they had heard from colleagues, policymakers or other stakeholders for not using HTA in their settings. METHODS: There were 193 respondents to the survey. Most responses were from individuals in research organisations (37%), ministries of health (27%) and other government agencies (14%). Participants came from Southeast Asia (40%), the Western Pacific (30%), Africa (15%), Europe (7%), the Americas (7%) and the Eastern Mediterranean region (2%). RESULTS: The top five reasons encountered by respondents related to lack of data, lack of technical skills for HTA, the technocratic nature of the work, the lack of explicit decision rules and the perception that HTA puts a "price on life". CONCLUSIONS: This study aimed to understand and address the top reasons for not using HTA. They fall into three categories: (1) misconceptions about HTA; (2) feasibility issues; and (3) values, attitudes and politics. Previous literature has shown that these reasons can be addressed when identified, and even imperfect HTA analyses can provide useful information to a decision-maker.

The journey to UHC: how well are vertical programmes integrated in the health benefits package? A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Countries are recommended to progressively work towards universal health coverage (UHC), and to make explicit choices regarding the expansion of priority services. However, there is little guidance on how to manage the inclusion of vertical programmes, funded by external partners, in health benefits packages (HBP) in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). OBJECTIVE: We conducted a scoping review to map the inclusion of six vertical programmes (HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, maternal and child health, contraceptives, immunisation) in 26 LMICs. METHODS: We identified 26 LMICs with an HBP that was not aspirational (eg, with evidence of implementation or funding). For each HBP, we collected information on the corresponding UHC scheme, health financing at the time of establishment, revisions since inception and entitlements. For each vertical programme, we developed a list of tracer interventions based on the Disease Control Priorities 3 and the 100 Core Health Indicators List. We then used this list of tracer interventions to map the coverage of the six vertical programmes. RESULTS: The review shows that there is no common starting point for countries embarking into UHC. Some HBPs were almost three decades old. Whole package revisions are rare. The inclusion of vertical programme does not follow a given pattern based on health financing indicators or country's income group. Maternal child health services are the most often included and family planning the least. Six countries in our sample covered all vertical programmes, while one covered only one of six. CONCLUSIONS: This review has shown that there has been a long history of countries facing this question and we have provided the first mapping of inclusion of vertical programmes in UHC. The results of the mapping can inform decisions in countries embarking in UHC.

Health technology assessment in sub-Saharan Africa: a descriptive analysis and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are moving towards universal health coverage. The process of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) can support decisions relating to benefit package design and service coverage. HTA involves institutional cooperation with agreed methods and procedural standards. We systematically reviewed the literature on policies and capacity building to support HTA institutionalisation in SSA. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature by searching major databases (PubMed, Embase, etc.) until June 2019 using terms considering three aspects: HTA; health policy, decision making; and SSA. We quantitatively extracted and descriptively analysed content and conducted a narrative synthesis eliciting themes from the selected literature, which varied in study type and apporach. RESULTS: Half of the 49 papers identified were primary research studies and mostly qualitative. Five countries were represented in six of ten studies; South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, Cameroon, and Ethiopia. Half of first authors were from SSA. Most informants were policy makers. Five themes emerged: (1) use of HTA; (2) decision-making in HTA; (3) values and criteria for setting priority areas in HTA; (4) involving stakeholders in HTA; and (5) specific examples of progress in HTA in SSA. The first one was the main theme where there was little use of evidence and research in making policy. The awareness of HTA and economic evaluation was low, with inadequate expertise and a lack of local data and tools. CONCLUSIONS: Despite growing interest in HTA in SSA countries, awareness remains low and HTA-related activities are uncoordinated and often disconnected from policy. Further training and skills development are needed, firmly linked to a strategy focusing on strengthening within-country partnerships, particularly among researchers and policy makers. The international community has an important role here by supporting policy- relevant technical assistance, highlighting that sustainable financing demands evidence-based processes for effective resource allocation, and catalysing knowledge-sharing opportunities among countries facing similar challenges.

Assessing the performance of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies: developing a multi-country, multi-stakeholder, and multi-dimensional framework to explore mechanisms of impact.

BACKGROUND: Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have an important role to play in managing the rising demands on health systems. However, creating and running such agencies potentially diverts resources from frontline services. A large number of studies address the question of 'what is the impact of HTA?'. Several points of heterogeneity in this literature include: purpose of the study, definition of HTA, definition of impact, and scope and rigour of evaluations. Our study seeks to address several limitations in this literature. This study aims to explore the mechanisms of impact of an HTA agency. In doing so, we consider HTA as an institution rather than a knowledge product to build an impact evaluation framework from an international, multi-stakeholder and multi-dimensional perspective. METHODS: We conducted 9 key informant interviews with experts from the international HTA community. We addressed several questions, informed by existing frameworks of impact within the literature, to understand their perspectives on the mechanisms of impact of an HTA agency. We analyse data using logic modelling and impact mapping, as tools to understand and visualise mechanisms of change. FINDINGS: Our impact mapping highlights several distinct, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, mechanisms through which the overall impact of an HTA agency is achieved. These are: the effective conduct of HTA studies; effective use of HTA in agenda-setting and policy formulation processes; effective engagement and external communications; good institutional reputation and fit within the healthcare and policy-making system; effective use of HTA as a tool for the negotiation of health technology prices; and the effective implementation of policy change regarding health technologies. We also identify indicators of these effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings and resulting evaluation framework complement and add to existing literature by offering a new perspective on the mechanisms by which HTA agencies generate impact. This new perspective considers HTA as an institution rather than a knowledge product, is international, multi-dimensional, and includes multi-stakeholder views. We hope the analysis will be useful to countries interested in managing HTA performance.

Ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030: Time to reset targets for 2025.

Paul De Lay and co-authors introduce a Collection on the design of targets for ending the AIDS epidemic.