Psychometric analysis of the modified COVID-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale (C19-YRSm) in a prospective multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID (LC) is a novel multisystem clinical syndrome affecting millions of individuals worldwide. The modified COVID-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale (C19-YRSm) is a condition-specific patient-reported outcome measure designed for assessment and monitoring of people with LC. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the C19-YRSm in a prospective sample of people with LC. METHODS: 1314 patients attending 10 UK specialist LC clinics completed C19-YRSm and EuroQol 5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) longitudinally. Scale characteristics were derived for C19-YRSm subscales (Symptom Severity (SS), Functional Disability (FD) and Overall Health (OH)) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha). Convergent validity was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue Scale. Known groups validity was assessed for the Other Symptoms subscale as tertiles, as well as by hospitalisation and intensive care admission. Responsiveness and test-retest reliability was evaluated for C19-YRSm subscales and EQ-5D-5L. The minimal important difference (MID) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) were estimated. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied to determine the instrument's two-factor structure. RESULTS: C19-YRSm demonstrated good scale characteristic properties. Item-total correlations were between 0.37 and 0.65 (for SS and FD), with good internal reliability (Cronbach's alphas>0.8). Item correlations between subscales ranged between 0.46 and 0.72. Convergent validity with FACIT was good (-0.46 to -0.62). The three subscales discriminated between different levels of symptom burden (p<0.001) and between patients admitted to hospital and intensive care. There was moderate responsiveness for the three subscales ranging from 0.22 (OH) to 0.50 (SS) which was greater than for the EQ-5D-5L. Test-retest reliability was good for both SS 0.86 and FD 0.78. MID was 2 for SS, 2 for FD and 1 for OH; MCID was 4 for both the SS and FD. The factor analysis supported the two-factor SS and FD structure. CONCLUSIONS: The C19-YRSm is a condition-specific, reliable, valid and responsive patient-reported outcome measure for LC.

Impact of Long COVID on productivity and informal caregiving.

BACKGROUND: Around 2 million people in the UK suffer from Long COVID (LC). Of concern is the disease impact on productivity and informal care burden. This study aimed to quantify and value productivity losses and informal care receipt in a sample of LC patients in the UK. METHODS: The target population comprised LC patients referred to LC specialist clinics. The questionnaires included a health economics questionnaire (HEQ) measuring productivity impacts, informal care receipt and service utilisation, EQ-5D-5L, C19-YRS LC condition-specific measure, and sociodemographic and COVID-19 history variables. Outcomes were changes from the incident infection resulting in LC to the month preceding the survey in paid work status/h, work income, work performance and informal care receipt. The human capital approach valued productivity losses; the proxy goods method valued caregiving hours. The values were extrapolated nationally using published prevalence data. Multilevel regressions, nested by region, estimated associations between the outcomes and patient characteristics. RESULTS: 366 patients responded to HEQ (mean LC duration 449.9 days). 51.7% reduced paid work hours relative to the pre-infection period. Mean monthly work income declined by 24.5%. The average aggregate value of productivity loss since incident infection was £10,929 (95% bootstrap confidence interval £8,844-£13,014) and £5.7 billion (£3.8-£7.6 billion) extrapolated nationally. The corresponding values for informal caregiving were £8,726 (£6,247-£11,204) and £4.8 billion (£2.6-£7.0 billion). Multivariate analyses found significant associations between each outcome and health utility and C19-YRS subscale scores. CONCLUSION: LC significantly impacts productivity losses and provision of informal care, exacerbated by high national prevalence of LC.

LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS (LOCOMOTION): protocol for a mixed-methods study in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Long COVID, a new condition whose origins and natural history are not yet fully established, currently affects 1.5 million people in the UK. Most do not have access to specialist long COVID services. We seek to optimise long COVID care both within and outside specialist clinics, including improving access, reducing inequalities, helping self-management and providing guidance and decision support for primary care. We aim to establish a 'gold standard' of care by systematically analysing current practices, iteratively improving pathways and systems of care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed-methods, multisite study is informed by the principles of applied health services research, quality improvement, co-design, outcome measurement and learning health systems. It was developed in close partnership with patients (whose stated priorities are prompt clinical assessment; evidence-based advice and treatment and help with returning to work and other roles) and with front-line clinicians. Workstreams and tasks to optimise assessment, treatment and monitoring are based in three contrasting settings: workstream 1 (qualitative research, up to 100 participants), specialist management in 10 long COVID clinics across the UK, via a quality improvement collaborative, experience-based co-design and targeted efforts to reduce inequalities of access, return to work and peer support; workstream 2 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), patient self-management at home, technology-supported monitoring and validation of condition-specific outcome measures and workstream 3 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), generalist management in primary care, harnessing electronic record data to study population phenotypes and develop evidence-based decision support, referral pathways and analysis of costs. Study governance includes an active patient advisory group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS study is sponsored by the University of Leeds and approved by Yorkshire & The Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/YH/0276). Participants will provide informed consent. Dissemination plans include academic and lay publications, and partnerships with national and regional policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05057260, ISRCTN15022307.

A novel approach to sharing all available information from funded health research: the NIHR Journals Library.

BACKGROUND: Relevant information on health research must be made publicly available in an accurate, timely and accessible manner if evidence is to inform practice and benefit patient care. Failure to publish research information represents a significant waste of research funds. However, recent studies have demonstrated that non-publication and selective or biased reporting remains a significant problem. The role of online publications in rectifying these issues by providing open access to study information is increasingly recognised. OBJECTIVE: This paper details a novel approach to publishing research information developed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), a major funder of health research in the United Kingdom. The NIHR has enhanced its Journals Library ( www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk ), providing an online repository of information from research funded through five programmes. We describe how the NIHR Journals Library provides a 'thread' of relevant information for each study, including protocols, participant information sheets, data linkages, final reports, publications and diverse knowledge products. We also discuss the Library as a 'living' resource, one that is updated as each study progresses from inception to completion. Finally, we consider the implications of the Library for the NIHR, other journals and research teams submitting information. CONCLUSION: Openly publishing information from funded research in the NIHR Journals Library serves as a model of knowledge sharing, maximising return on investment and enhancing the usability and replicability of research findings for different evidence-user communities. The Library also supports wider 'research on research' ambitions, enabling users to interrogate the repository of NIHR-funded studies, enhancing the understanding of research commissioning, design, dissemination and impact. Video abstract: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H03uxN_iTE .

Clinical trial metadata: defining and extracting metadata on the design, conduct, results and costs of 125 randomised clinical trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

BACKGROUND: By 2011, the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme had published the results of over 100 trials with another 220 in progress. The aim of the project was to develop and pilot 'metadata' on clinical trials funded by the HTA programme. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the project was to develop and pilot questions describing clinical trials funded by the HTA programme in terms of it meeting the needs of the NHS with scientifically robust studies. The objectives were to develop relevant classification systems and definitions for use in answering relevant questions and to assess their utility. DATA SOURCES: Published monographs and internal HTA documents. REVIEW METHODS: A database was developed, 'populated' using retrospective data and used to answer questions under six prespecified themes. Questions were screened for feasibility in terms of data availability and/or ease of extraction. Answers were assessed by the authors in terms of completeness, success of the classification system used and resources required. Each question was scored to be retained, amended or dropped. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-five randomised trials were included in the database from 109 monographs. Neither the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number nor the term 'randomised trial' in the title proved a reliable way of identifying randomised trials. Only limited data were available on how the trials aimed to meet the needs of the NHS. Most trials were shown to follow their protocols but updates were often necessary as hardly any trials recruited as planned. Details were often lacking on planned statistical analyses, but we did not have access to the relevant statistical plans. Almost all the trials reported on cost-effectiveness, often in terms of both the primary outcome and quality-adjusted life-years. The cost of trials was shown to depend on the number of centres and the duration of the trial. Of the 78 questions explored, 61 were well answered, 33 fully with 28 requiring amendment were the analysis updated. The other 17 could not be answered with readily available data. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by being confined to 125 randomised trials by one funder. CONCLUSIONS: Metadata on randomised controlled trials can be expanded to include aspects of design, performance, results and costs. The HTA programme should continue and extend the work reported here. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide.

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

The completeness of intervention descriptions in published National Institute of Health Research HTA-funded trials: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess whether National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the HTA journal were described in sufficient detail to replicate in practice. SETTING: RCTs published in the HTA journal. PARTICIPANTS: 98 RCTs published in the HTA journal up to March 2011. Completeness of the intervention description was assessed independently by two researchers using a checklist, which included assessments of participants, intensity, schedule, materials and settings. Disagreements in scoring were discussed in the team; differences were then explored and resolved. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of trials rated as having a complete description of the intervention (primary outcome measure). The proportion of drug trials versus psychological and non-drug trials rated as having a complete description of the intervention (secondary outcome measures). RESULTS: Components of the intervention description were missing in 68/98 (69.4%) reports. Baseline characteristics and descriptions of settings had the highest levels of completeness with over 90% of reports complete. Reports were less complete on patient information with 58.2% of the journals having an adequate description. When looking at individual intervention types, drug intervention descriptions were more complete than non-drug interventions with 33.3% and 30.6% levels of completeness, respectively, although this was not significant statistically. Only 27.3% of RCTs with psychological interventions were deemed to be complete, although again these differences were not significant statistically. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring the replicability of study interventions is an essential part of adding value in research. All those publishing clinical trial data need to ensure transparency and completeness in the reporting of interventions to ensure that study interventions can be replicated.

Time to publication for NIHR HTA programme-funded research: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the time to publication of primary research and evidence syntheses funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme published as a monograph in Health Technology Assessment and as a journal article in the wider biomedical literature. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary research and evidence synthesis projects funded by the HTA Programme were included in the cohort if they were registered in the NIHR research programmes database and was planned to submit the draft final report for publication in Health Technology Assessment on or before 9 December 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The median time to publication and publication at 30 months in Health Technology Assessment and in an external journal were determined by searching the NIHR research programmes database and HTA Programme website. RESULTS: Of 458 included projects, 184 (40.2%) were primary research projects and 274 (59.8%) were evidence syntheses. A total of 155 primary research projects had a completion date; the median time to publication was 23 months (26.5 and 35.5 months to publish a monograph and to publish in an external journal, respectively) and 69% were published within 30 months. The median time to publication of HTA-funded trials (n=126) was 24 months and 67.5% were published within 30 months. Among the evidence syntheses with a protocol online date (n=223), the median time to publication was 25.5 months (28 months to publication as a monograph), but only 44.4% of evidence synthesis projects were published in an external journal. 65% of evidence synthesis studies had been published within 30.0 months. CONCLUSIONS: Research funded by the HTA Programme publishes promptly. The importance of Health Technology Assessment was highlighted as the median time to publication was 9 months shorter for a monograph than an external journal article.

Assessing the international use of health technology assessments: exploring the merits of different methods when applied to the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme.

OBJECTIVES: This study presents findings from a study that explores the merits of different methods for assessing the international use of UK funded research by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme. METHODS: The study adopted an exploratory approach and used three core methods: (i) Academic use was explored through bibliometric and citation analysis of the top ten most cited health technology assessment (HTA) reports. (ii) Internet use was assessed using Webtrends software to identify the proportion of international visits of the top ten most downloaded HTA reports from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2010. (iii) International HTA use was assessed by searching the Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) HTA database to explore the citation of NIHR HTA reports in reports by non-UK HTA agencies. RESULTS: Bibliometric analysis identified published output and international citations with 41 percent of the 549 journals citing NIHR HTA reports being based in the United States. Nine of ten most downloaded reports from the NIHR HTA Web site (www.hta.ac.uk) had in excess of 50 percent of visits outside the United Kingdom. Four of five selected NIHR HTA reports were cited in twenty-eight other HTA reports, eighteen of these outside the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing international use is important when exploring the uptake of research evidence. Methods used in identifying research impact, such as bibliometrics and Webtrends, are helpful in generating evidence of international use. HTA agencies should consider these techniques and international use when assessing the uptake of findings from research they undertake and/or commission.

Registration of noncommercial randomised clinical trials: the feasibility of using trial registries to monitor the number of trials.

BACKGROUND: A 2003 survey suggested the number of noncommercial trials in the UK was declining. Formation of the NIHR in 2006 and increased research spending by the Department of Health may have increased the number of noncommercial trials but no data are available. METHODS: Available data on UK noncommercial trials (were obtained from the two relevant registries: ISRCTN register for the UK, and US ClinicalTrials.gov. Data on each trial were sorted by start year, and compared with the: 2003 survey, and UKCRN portfolio database from 2007. RESULTS: The number of UK noncommercial trials registered rose from 25 in 1990 to 188 in 1999, peaked at 533 in 2003, and fell back to 334 in 2009. Total trials registered was similar to but slightly above those in the 2003 survey up to 1998, then rose sharply to 2002 before falling to 2007. From 2007 to 2009 the number registered to start each year was similar to but slightly above the UKCRN database. Less than 10% of UK noncommercial trials registered with ClinGov for most years before 2005, but this rose to 35% by 2009. CONCLUSIONS: For the periods of overlap, trial registration data provide fairly similar totals to other sources on the number of noncommercial trials starting each year. The rise and fall in the number of trials registered between 1999 and 2007 was due to those registered in the ISRCTN database as funded by NHS Trusts. After 2007, the number of trials registered as funded by NHS Trusts has fallen in the ISRCTN register but these trials may have migrated to the US ClinGov register. The total number of noncommercial trial starts, excluding those funded by NHS Trusts, has been upward since around 2002. By 2009 the two main funders were NIHR and charities. Feasibility of using registration data to monitor the number of noncommercial trials has been demonstrated but is complicated by the use of two registers and difficulties in accessing the data. We recommend an annual report on the number of noncommercial trials registering each year.

Teaching critical appraisal skills in healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Critical appraisal is the process of assessing and interpreting evidence by systematically considering its validity, results and relevance to an individual's work. Within the last decade critical appraisal has been added as a topic to many medical school and UK Royal College curricula, and several continuing professional development ventures have been funded to provide further training. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of teaching critical appraisal skills to health professionals on the process of care, patient outcomes and knowledge of health professionals. SEARCH METHODS. We updated the search (see Appendix 1 for search strategies by database) and used those search strategies to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1997 to June 2011) and MEDLINE (from 1997 to June 2011). We also searched EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO (up to January 2010). We searched LISA (up to January 2010), ERIC (up to January 2010), SIGLE (up to January 2010) and Web of Knowledge (up to January 2010). We also searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register up to January 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses that examined the effectiveness of educational interventions teaching critical appraisal to health professionals. The outcomes included process of care, patient mortality, morbidity, quality of life and satisfaction. We included studies reporting on health professional knowledge/awareness only when based upon objective, standardised, validated instruments. We did not consider studies involving students. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors of included studies to obtain missing data. MAIN RESULTS: In total, we reviewed a total of 11,057 titles and abstracts, of which 148 appeared potentially relevant to the review. We included three studies involving 272 people in this review. None of the included studies evaluated process of care or patient outcomes. Statistically significant improvements in participants' knowledge were reported in domains of critical appraisal (variable approaches across studies) in two of the three studies. We determined risk of bias to be 'unclear' and as such considered this to be 'plausible bias that raises some doubt about the results'. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-intensity critical appraisal teaching interventions in healthcare populations may result in modest gains. Improvements to research examining the effectiveness of interventions in healthcare populations are required; specifically rigorous randomised trials employing interventions using appropriate adult learning theories.

Potential benefits of using a toolkit developed to aid in the adaptation of HTA reports: a case study considering positron emission tomography (PET) and Hodgkin's disease.

BACKGROUND: The preparation of HTA reports requires a great deal of time, effort and resource, and there is a desire to improve efficiency, avoid duplication of effort and facilitate the transfer of knowledge between countries. This is of particular importance for countries with more limited resources which have less capacity to produce their own reports. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent of duplication of published Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports, on the same technology, for the same indication; using positron emission tomography (PET) for lung cancer and Hodgkin's disease as a case study. This was done in order to assess the potential usefulness of a toolkit developed to aid in the adaptation of HTA reports from one context or country to another. METHODS: A systematic search of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) CRD HTA database was conducted in June 2008 in order to identify full HTA reports containing information on the use of PET for lung cancer and Hodgkin's disease, written in English, and readily available on the web. The contents of the reports identified were then examined to assess the extent of duplication of content between reports and potential for the use of the toolkit. RESULTS: From 132 records of HTA reports about PET, 8 reports were identified as fulfilling all the criteria set, and therefore demonstrating potential duplication of effort. All these reports covered four similar domains, technology use, safety, effectiveness and economic evaluation. Five of the reports also considered organisational aspects. CONCLUSIONS: There was some duplication of effort in the preparation of HTA reports concerned with the use of PET for lung cancer and Hodgkin's disease. This is an example of where resource could have been conserved and time saved by the use of a toolkit developed to aid in the adaptation of HTA reports from one context to another.

The adaptation of health technology assessment reports: identification of the need for, and development of, a toolkit to aid the process.

OBJECTIVES: Europe has many health technology assessment (HTA) agencies, each producing their own HTA reports. Adapting HTA reports for different contexts could reduce the need for multiple reports on the same health technology with resultant saving of time and resources. This study aims to examine and understand the process of adaptation, and to develop a toolkit that would help the adaptation of reports produced by other countries. METHODS: The methods used were a review of the literature; a survey of twenty-nine European HTA organizations, two rounds of a Delphi survey, a face-to-face meeting of twenty-one European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) representatives, iterative rounds of review, and two rounds of quality assurance testing (termed applicability testing). RESULTS: Descriptions of previous examples of adaptation in the literature are sparse. Most respondents had previous experience in adapting reports, and all believed that adaptation was useful, and there was the ability to benefit from the use of a toolkit to aid in the process. EUnetHTA Partners developed and tested an adaptation toolkit. The toolkit is composed of a series of checklists and resources that identify or clarify the relevance, reliability, and transferability of data and information from existing reports. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus of opinion from twenty-nine European organizations/networks has indicated that the adaptation of HTA reports would be desirable and beneficial. A toolkit was developed to help with the adaptation of HTA reports produced in other settings. This collection of resources is available for use by all HTA agencies and can be accessed at: http://www.eunethta.net/upload/WP5/EUnetHTA_HTA_Adaptation_Toolkit_October08.pdf.

The health technology assessment adaptation toolkit: description and use.

OBJECTIVES: Adapting health technology assessment (HTA) reports for different contexts could reduce the need for multiple reports on the same health technology with resultant saving of time and resources. This article describes an instrument, the adaptation toolkit, which has been developed to aid in the process of adaptation of HTA reports. METHODS: The toolkit was developed by a partnership of HTA agencies and networks from across Europe. The role of the toolkit is to guide the user through the process of selecting possible relevant material from these report(s), assessing the relevance, reliability, and transferability of the material, and adapting it for the desired context. RESULTS: The adaptation toolkit has been developed, it comprises a collection of resources that help the user assess whether data and information in existing HTA reports should and could be adapted for their own setting. The toolkit contains two sections: a preliminary speedy sifting section and the main toolkit. The main toolkit includes five domains: (i) technology use and development, (ii) safety, (iii) effectiveness (including efficacy), (iv) economic evaluation, and (v) organizational aspects. Legal, ethical, and social aspects are beyond the scope of the toolkit. The toolkit is designed for the adaptation of evidence synthesis rather than primary research. CONCLUSIONS: The completed current version of the toolkit contains checklists and resources to aid in the adaptation of HTA reports. This collection of resources is available for use by all HTA agencies and can be accessed at: http://www.eunethta.net/upload/WP5/EUnetHTA_HTA_Adaptation_Toolkit_October08.pdf..

Enhancing understanding: the development of a glossary of health technology assessment adaptation terms.

BACKGROUND: The way people use health technology assessment (HTA) terms varies considerably across Europe. Such variation can lead to misunderstandings when reading HTA reports from different contexts. This work is one of the outputs of the EUnetHTA Project and was undertaken between 2006 and 2008. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop a glossary of HTA adaptation terms to help reduce the misunderstandings of terms used in HTA reports from contexts other than the reader's own. METHODS: Several HTA glossaries were examined to identify ways in which an additional glossary could offer readers something new and to identify adaptation terms for inclusion. Twenty-eight European HTA organizations provided terms for the glossary and drafted descriptions and examples of how each specific term was used in their particular setting. The organizations then commented on the descriptions provided by the other groups and worked together to draft a single description for certain terms. RESULTS: A glossary of HTA adaptation terms was developed. It provides a comprehensive range of descriptions, examples, and comments for forty-two potentially confusing HTA terms related to adaptation. CONCLUSIONS: This glossary will be a valuable resource for European HTA agencies when reading HTA reports produced in different contexts and for adapting HTA reports produced in other countries. The glossary will help improve understanding and help facilitate the adaptation process.

European network for health technology assessment, EUnetHTA: planning, development, and implementation of a sustainable European network for health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The European network on Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) aimed to produce tangible and practical results to be used in the various phases of health technology assessment and to establish a framework and processes to support this. This article presents the background, objectives, and organization of EUnetHTA, which involved a total of sixty-four partner organizations. METHODS: Establishing an effective and sustainable structure for a transnational network involved many managerial, policy, and methodological tools, according to the objective of each task or Work Package. Transparency in organization, financial transactions, and decision making was a key principle in the management of the Project as was the commitment to appropriately involve stakeholders. RESULTS: EUnetHTA activities resulted in a clear management and governance structure, efficient partnership, and transnational cooperation. The Project developed a model for sustainable continuation of the EUnetHTA Collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: The EUnetHTA Project achieved its goals by producing a suite of practical tools, a strong network, and plans for continuing the work in a sustainable EUnetHTA Collaboration that facilitates and promotes the use of HTA at national and regional levels. Responsiveness to political developments in Europe should be balanced with maintaining a high level of ambition to promote independent, evidence-based information and well-tested tools for best practice based on a strong network of HTA institutions.