European collaboration on health technology assessment: looking backward and forward.

The establishment of health technology assessment (HTA) has been an important topic in Europe for many years. There have been a series of activities starting with first projects in 1994 leading to joint actions from the European Network of HTA (EUnetHTA) ending in 2021. This long interval of engagement with HTA structures, methodology, and processes by all member states led to a reliable basis for European collaboration in HTA. This article shows milestones and developments from EUR-ASSESS in 1994 through the progress of EUnetHTA and the accompanying EU-HTA-Network up to the recent elaboration of the EU-HTA-Regulation. With the EU-HTA-Regulation HTA collaboration is taken out of the trial phase of more than 15 years. Through the previous EU HTA collaboration, the appreciation and understanding of the differences and complexities behind the HTA processes in the EU healthcare systems have improved. It is now necessary to make the final steps toward a sustainable European Network for HTA.

Collaborative models for the joint production of core health technology assessments: negative and positive aspects for the joint work of different European agencies.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) is to make HTA agencies collaborate sharing methods and tools thus avoiding duplication of evaluative efforts and allowing resource savings. From 2010 to 2012, the activities of the network were carried out through EUnetHTA Joint Action 1 and Work Package 4 Strand B aimed at producing two Core HTAs with two main objectives: to test the Web based Core model and the collaborative working models. Our objective in this article is to give an historical record of the Work Package activities highlighting what worked and what did not in the collaboration of researchers' groups coming from different agencies. METHODS: A retrospective description of all the steps for the joint production of the two Core HTAs is provided starting from the first step of selecting technologies of common interest. Primary researchers' views on the whole process have been collected through a semi-structured telephonic interview supported by a questionnaire. Coordinators views were gathered during internal meetings and validated. RESULTS: Majority of respondents thought topic selection procedure was not clear and well managed. About collaborative models, small groups were seen to enable more exchange, whatever the model. According to coordinators, loss of expertise and experience during the production process, different languages, and novelty of the Online Tool were main barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learned from this first experience in Joint Action 1 paved the path for the collaboration in Joint Action 2, as it allowed enhancements and changes in models of collaborations and coordination.

Patients' perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation.

There is increasing emphasis on providing patient-focused health care and ensuring patient involvement in the design of health services. As health technology assessment (HTA) is meant to be a multidisciplinary, wide-ranging policy analysis that informs decision making, it would be expected that patients' views should be incorporated into the assessment. However, HTA is still driven by collection of quantitative evidence to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a health technology. Patients' perspectives about their illness and the technology are rarely included, perhaps because they are seen as anecdotal, biased views. There are two distinct but complementary ways in which HTAs can be strengthened by: (i) gathering robust evidence about the patients' perspectives, and (ii) ensuring effective engagement of patients in the HTA process from scoping, through evidence gathering, assessment of value, development of recommendations and dissemination of findings. Robust evidence eliciting patients' perspectives can be obtained through social science research that is well conducted, critically appraised and carefully reported, either through meta-synthesis of existing studies or new primary research. Engagement with patients can occur at several levels and we propose that HTA should seek to support effective patient participation to create a fair deliberative process. This should allow two-way flow of information, so that the views of patients are obtained in a supportive way and fed into decision-making processes in a transparent manner.

Wireless capsule endoscopy in Italy: adding context-specific data to the review of the evidence from literature.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the evidence of diagnostic accuracy of the wireless capsule for endoscopy (WCE) for the diagnosis of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) and small bowel disease in adults and translate it to the context of the Italian National Health Service. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of secondary and primary literature. We reviewed WCE diagnostic accuracy, safety, economic evaluations for OGIB. Context-specific data about WCE diffusion, costs, appropriateness of WCE use were collected by means of a national survey involving all Italian gastroenterological departments. RESULTS: We updated the systematic review of the most recent health technology assessment report (2006). Our review shows lack of robust comparative evidence of diagnostic accuracy of WCE. The studies' design do not allow collection of reliable evidence due to the uncertainty surrounding morphological variability of bleeding vascular gut lesions. The national survey reported widespread WCE use and data on appropriateness and costs. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of WCE diagnostic accuracy is of low quality, and there is a requirement for randomized comparisons. Our findings raise the issue of technology governance and show the importance of an assessment before the technology being widely commercialized.

Systems to support health technology assessment (HTA) in member states of the European union with limited institutionalization of HTA.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to support health technology assessment (HTA) capacity building in Member States of the European Union with limited experience or without institutionalized HTA. The main output is a Handbook on HTA Capacity Building. METHODS: The methods used were worldwide surveys of (i) HTA organizations, (ii) information management units, and (iii) HTA educational programs. The results of two surveys (i & ii) were combined with expert opinion to produce the Handbook on HTA Capacity Building. RESULTS: Survey of HTA organizations (n = 41, response rate 35 percent). Most of the organizations were established by the government (61 percent), and all were not-for-profit. Working on HTA (80.5 percent) and doing research (63.4 percent) were the main lines of activity. Survey on information management units (n = 23, response rate 23 percent). Most (74.2 percent) of the responding HTA agencies reported having personnel dedicated to HTA information services. Survey on HTA educational programs (n = 48, response rate 60 percent). In total, nine Master of Science (MSc) programs were identified (three MSc in HTA and six MSc in HTA-related areas). Handbook on HTA Capacity Building. A group of twenty experts from thirteen countries developed the handbook. It consists of nine chapters focusing on HTA institutional development (structural setup, work processes, and visibility). CONCLUSIONS: Setting up organizational structures and establishing effective HTA programs that guide key policy decisions is a challenging task. There are no standard models or pathways. "One size fits all" is not a useful principle because of the wide systemic and cultural differences between countries. The Handbook on HTA Capacity Building includes approaches for overall institutional development, especially in formulating objectives, setting up structures, and defining work processes.

Comparisons of American, Israeli, Italian and Mexican physicians and nurses on the total and factor scores of the Jefferson scale of attitudes toward physician-nurse collaborative relationships.

This cross-cultural study was designed to compare the attitudes of physicians and nurses toward physician-nurse collaboration in the United States, Israel, Italy and Mexico. Total participants were 2522 physicians and nurses who completed the Jefferson Scale of Attitudes Toward Physician-Nurse Collaboration (15 Likert-type items, (Hojat et al., Evaluation and the Health Professions 22 (1999a) 208; Nursing Research 50 (2001) 123). They were compared on the total scores and four factors of the Jefferson Scale (shared education and team work, caring as opposed to curing, nurses, autonomy, physicians' dominance). Results showed inter- and intra-cultural similarities and differences among the study groups providing support for the social role theory (Hardy and Conway, Role Theory: Perspectives for Health Professionals, Appelton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1978) and the principle of least interest (Waller and Hill, The Family: A Dynamic Interpretation, Dryden, New York, 1951) in inter-professional relationships. Implications for promoting physician-nurse education and inter-professional collaboration are discussed.

The Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy: preliminary psychometrics and group comparisons in Italian physicians.

PURPOSE: To examine the psychometrics of the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (JSPE) among a sample of Italian physicians. METHOD: The JSPE was translated into Italian using back-translation procedures to ensure the accuracy of the translation. The translated JSPE was administered to 778 physicians at three hospitals in Rome, Italy in 2002. Individual empathy scores were calculated, as well as descriptive statistics at the item and scale level. Group comparisons of empathy scores were also made among men and women, physicians practicing in medical or surgical specialties, physicians working in different hospitals, and at physicians at various levels of career rank. RESULTS: Results are reported for 289 participants who completed the JSPE. Item-total score correlations were all positive and statistically significant. The prominent component of "perspective taking," which is the most important underlying construct of the scale, emerged in the factor analysis of the JSPE and was similar in both Italian and American samples. However, more factors appeared among Italian physicians, indicating that the underlying construct of empathy may be more complex among Italians. Cronbach coefficient alpha was .85. None of the group differences observed among physicians classified by gender, hospital of practice, specialty, or level of career rank reached statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Findings generally provide support for the construct validity and reliability of the Italian version of the JSPE. Further research is needed to determine whether the lack of statistically significant differences in empathy by gender and specialty is related to cultural peculiarities, the translation of the scale, or sampling.