Developing the HTA core model for the online environment.

BACKGROUND: A framework for collaborative production and sharing of HTA information, the HTA Core Model, was originally developed within EUnetHTA in 2006-08. In this paper, we describe the further development of the Model to allow implementation and utilization of the Model online. The aim was to capture a generic HTA process that would allow effective use of the HTA Core Model and resulting HTA information while at the same time not interfering with HTA agencies' internal processes. METHODS: The work was coordinated by a development team in Finland, supported by an international expert group. Two pilot testing rounds were organized among EUnetHTA agencies and two extensive core HTA projects tested the tool in a real setting. The final work was also formally validated by a group of HTA agencies. RESULTS: The HTA Core Model Online--available at http://www.corehta.info--is a web site hosting a) a tool to allow electronic utilization of the HTA Core Model and b) a database of produced HTA information. While access to the HTA information is free to all, the production features are currently available to EUnetHTA member agencies only. A policy was crafted to steer the use of the Model and produced information. CONCLUSIONS: We have successfully enabled electronic use of the HTA Core Model and agreed on a policy for its utilization. The system is already being used in subsequent HTA projects within EUnetHTA Joint Action 2. Identified shortcomings and further needs will be addressed in subsequent development.

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.

Impact of technology overlapping: a case study on colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: Technology overlapping is a phenomenon based on the availability of different technologies to treat the same morbidity in the same patient group. The aim of this study was to explore the cost-effectiveness of technology overlapping in a case study on colorectal cancer (CRC), and describe an approach to investigate the phenomena and to propose adequate interventions. METHODS: A Semi-Markov model, based on a cohort of 10,000 people undergoing a CRC diagnostic test, was developed to simulate the overlapping phenomena and compare it with hypothetical scenarios where only one diagnostic tool is available. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted on parameters with the greatest uncertainty. RESULTS: The results of the Semi-Markov model indicated that technology overlapping is not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: This study is a first attempt to address the significance of technology overlapping. The Semi-Markov model demonstrated that technology overlapping is the least cost-effective arm, so alternate health care policies must be investigated.