Información de la revista
Vol. 18. Núm. 5.
Páginas 398-405 (Septiembre - Octubre 2004)
Respuestas rápidas
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Vol. 18. Núm. 5.
Páginas 398-405 (Septiembre - Octubre 2004)
Open Access
La introducción de tecnologías en los sistemas sanitarios: del dicho al hecho
The introduction of technologies in health care systems: from saying to doing
Visitas
...
Anna García-Altés
Autor para correspondencia
annagarcia@post.harvard.edu

Correspondencia: Fundación Instituto de Investigación en Servicios de Salud.
Fundación Instituto de Investigación en Servicios de Salud. Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona. Barcelona. España
Este artículo ha recibido
No disponible
Visitas
(Actualización diaria de datos)

Under a Creative Commons license
Información del artículo
Resumen
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Resumen
Introducción

La evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias (ETS) es un instrumento basado en la evidencia científica para la toma de decisiones sobre la inclusión de avances tecnológicos en los sistemas sanitarios. Ahora bien, hay múltiples condicionantes y elementos, provenientes tanto de la propia ETS como de profesionales, políticos y de la sociedad, que influyen en que los resultados de la ETS se lleven a cabo. El objetivo de este artículo es describir los principales elementos que condicionan la aplicación de la ETS en la práctica y su uso en el ámbito clínico y en la política sanitaria.

Métodos

Se ha realizado una búsqueda bibliográfica en la base de datos biomédica PubMed. Se revisaron las referencias seleccionadas, así como la bibliografía adicional y la literatura gris identificada a partir de las referencias, que trataba de temas relacionados con la práctica de la ETS. Los resultados se presentan de manera descriptiva, haciendo un análisis de los estudios agrupados por los distintos aspectos de la ETS.

Resultados

Algunos elementos clave en los que hay posibilidades de mejora son la estandarización del proceso de evaluación, la descripción de la misión de la organización, la priorización de tecnologías a evaluar, la claridad en la presentación de los resultados, la inclusión de valores sociales y de costeefectividad, y el aumento de la coordinación internacional.

Conclusiones

Para muchos, la razón de ser de la ETS es su función explícita en la toma de decisiones, aunque esto no está exento de problemas. Todo parece indicar que el futuro inmediato de la ETS pasa por explicitar los procesos de evaluación y la clara inclusión de la ETS en la toma de decisiones, con todo lo que ello supone de priorización de tecnologías, establecimiento de límites en cuanto al consumo de recursos económicos y vinculación con los procesos políticos.

Palabras clave:
Evaluación de tecnologías
Política sanitaria
Medicina basada en la evidencia
Asignación de recursos
Abstract
Introduction

Health technology assessment (HTA) is a tool based on scientific evidence useful for making decisions about the introduction of technological advances in healthcare systems. However, there are multiple elements that influence the actual use of the results of HTA. These elements are related both to the characteristics of HTA and to the stakeholders involved –health professionals, politicians, and society. The aim of this article was to describe the main elements that influence the applicability of HTA in practice, as well as the use of HTA in clinical practice and health policy.

Methods

A literature search was performed in PubMed. The references retrieved, as well as additional bibliography and gray literature dealing with different aspects of HTA practice identified from the references retrieved, were reviewed. The results are presented descriptively, with analysis of the studies grouped according to the various HTA-related topics.

Results

Key elements that could be improved are standardization of the evaluation process, description of the organization’s mission, prioritization of the technologies to be assessed, the clarity of the presentation of results, inclusion of values other than scientific evidence, such as social and costeffectiveness values, and increased international coordination.

Conclusions

For many people, the rationale for HTA is its explicit role in decision making, despite its problems. The immediate future of HTA would seem to include making the assessment process explicit, and the inclusion of HTA in decision making. This entails prioritization of technologies, setting limits on resource allocation and interrelation with political processes.

Key words:
Technology assessment
Health policy
Evidence-based medicine
Resource allocation
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
Bibliografía
[1.]
J. Puig-Junoy, V. Ortún, S. Ondategui.
Conocimientos, valores y políticas en economía de la salud.
Gac Sanit, 14 (2000), pp. 378-385
[2.]
L. Baker, H. Birnbaum, J. Geppert, D. Mishol, E. Moyneur.
The relationship between technology availability and health care spending.
Health Affaires, W3 (2003), pp. 537-551
[3.]
V.R. Fuchs.
Values and health care reform.
Am Economic Review, 86 (1996), pp. 1-24
[4.]
J.P. Newhouse.
Medical costs: how much welfare loss.
J Economic Perspec, 6 (1992), pp. 3-21
[5.]
A. Granados.
La evaluación de las tecnologías médicas.
Med Clin (Barc), 10 (1995), pp. 581-585
[6.]
García-Altés A, Ondategui-Parra S, Neumann PJ. Cross-national comparison of technology assessment processes [en prensa]. Int J Technol Assess Health Care
[7.]
C. Henshall, P. Koch, G.C. Von Below, A. Boer, J.L. Conde, A. Dillon, et al.
Health technology assessment in policy and practice. Working Group 6 Report.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 18 (2002), pp. 447-455
[8.]
R. Cookson, D. McDaid, A. Maynard.
Wrong SIGN, NICE mess: is national guidance distorting allocation of resources?.
BMJ, 323 (2001), pp. 743-745
[9.]
J. Farmer, R. Chesson.
NICE Lessons to be learned.
Int J Tech Assess Health Care, 17 (2001), pp. 222-235
[10.]
Multiple Sclerosis Society.
NICE second provisional appraisal: determination on use of beta inerferons and glatiramer acetate in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Response from the Multiple Sclerosis Society.
11 de septiembre de, (2001),
[11.]
N. Devlin, J. Appleby, D. Parkin.
Patient’s views of explicit rationing: what are the implications for health service decisionmaking?.
J Health Serv Res Policy, 8 (2003), pp. 183-186
[12.]
O. Frithjof Norheim.
The role of evidence in health policy: a normative perspective.
Health Care Analysis, 10 (2002), pp. 309-317
[13.]
C. Henshall, W. Oortwijn, A. Stevens, A. Granados, D. Banta.
Priority setting for health technology assessment. Theoretical considerations and practical approaches. Priority setting Subgroup of the EUR-ASSESS Project.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 13 (1997), pp. 144-185
[14.]
M. Buxton.
Implications of the appraisal function of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
Value in Health, 4 (2001), pp. 8-11
[15.]
S. Shani, M.I. Siebzehner, O. Luxenburg, J. Shemer.
Setting priorities for the adoption of health technologies on a national level –the Israeli experience.
Health Policy, 54 (2000), pp. 169-185
[16.]
W.J. Oortwijn, D. Banta, H. Vondeling, L. Bouter.
Identification and priority setting for health technology assessment in The Netherlands: actors and activities.
Health Policy, 47 (1999), pp. 241-253
[17.]
W.J. Oortwijn, H. Vondeling, L. Bouter.
The use of societal criteria in priority setting for health technology assessment.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 14 (1998), pp. 226-236
[18.]
C. Mitton, C. Donaldson.
Priority setting in health care: from research to practice. Conference summary.
[19.]
Priorización de los temas a evaluar.
Vitoria.
[20.]
M. Aymerich.
Priorització per a la recerca i avaluació en serveis sanitaris.
CAHTA Informatiu, 22 (2001), pp. 18-20
[21.]
A. Granados, E. Jonsson, H.D. Banta, L. Bero, A. Bonair, C. Cochet, et al.
EUR-ASSESS project subgroup report on dissemination and impact.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 13 (1997), pp. 220-286
[22.]
M. Siebert, L.C. Clauss, M. Carlisle, B. Casteels, P. De Jong, M. Kreuzer, et al.
Health technology assessment for medical devices in Europe. What must be considered.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 18 (2002), pp. 733-740
[23.]
M. Johri, P. Lehoux.
The great escape?.
Prospects for regulating access to technology through health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 19 (2003), pp. 179-193
[24.]
R. Milne, A. Clegg, A. Stevens.
HTA responses and the classic HTA report.
J Public Health Med, 25 (2003), pp. 102-106
[25.]
S. Perry, M. Thamer.
Medical innovation and the critical role of health technology assessment.
JAMA, 282 (1999), pp. 1869-1872
[26.]
M. Leys.
Health care policy: qualitative evidence and health technology assessment.
Health Policy, 65 (2003), pp. 217-226
[27.]
P.A. Singer, D.K. Martín, M. Giacomini, L. Pudrí.
Priority setting for new technologies in medicine: qualitative case study.
BMJ, 321 (2000), pp. 1316-1318
[28.]
P. Dolan, A. Tsuchiya, A. Wailoo.
NICE’s citizen’s council: what do we ask them, and how?.
[29.]
P. Dolan, R. Cookson, B. Ferguson.
Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public’s views of priority setting in health care: focus group study.
BMJ, 318 (1999), pp. 916-919
[30.]
Commonwealth of Australia.
Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: including major submissions involving economic analyses.
[31.]
Ministry of Health.
Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products.
[32.]
M. Sculpher, M. Drummond, B. O’Brien.
Effectiveness, efficiency, and NICE.
BMJ, 322 (2001), pp. 943-944
[33.]
R. Taylor.
Pharmaceutical regulation: the early experience of the NHS National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) appraisal process. Where are we headed?.
Value in Health, 4 (2001), pp. 8-11
[34.]
R. Taylor.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE): HTA rhyme and reason?.
Int J Tech Assess Health Care, 18 (2002), pp. 166-170
[35.]
L. Davies, M. Drummond, P. Papanikolaou.
Prioritizing investments in health technology assessment. Can we assess potential value for money?.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 16 (2000), pp. 73-91
[36.]
K. Claxton, M. Schulper, M. Drummond.
A racional framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clincial Excellence (NICE).
[37.]
J. Townsend, M. Buxton, G. Harper.
Priorisation of health technology assessment. The PATHS model: methods and case studies.
Health Technol Assess, 7 (2003), pp. 1-82
[38.]
A. Laupacis, D. Feeny, A. Detsky, P.X. Tugwell.
How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization?.
Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J, 146 (1992), pp. 473-481
[39.]
J. Raftery.
NICE: faster access to modern treatments?.
Analysis of guidance on health technologies. BMJ, 323 (2001), pp. 1300-1303
[40.]
J.A. Sacristán, J. Oliva, J. Del Llano, L. Prieto, J.P. Pinto.
¿Qué es una tecnología sanitaria eficiente en España?.
Gac Sanit, 16 (2002), pp. 334-343
[41.]
V. Ortún, 30.000 euros por AVAC.
Economía y Salud.
Boletín Informativo Asociación de Economía de la Salud, 49 (2004), pp. 1-2
[42.]
R. Mears, R. Taylor, P. Littlejohns, A. Dillon.
Review of international health technology assessment.
[43.]
A. Granados, L. Sampietro-Colom, J. Asua, J. Conde, R. Vázquez-Albertino.
Health technology assessment in Spain.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 16 (2000), pp. 532-559
[44.]
D. Menon, D. Marshall.
The internationalization of health technology assessment.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 12 (1996), pp. 45-51
[45.]
D. McDaid.
Co-ordinating health technology assessment in Canada: a European perspective.
Health Policy, 63 (2003), pp. 205-213
[46.]
R. Smith.
The failings of NICE.
BMJ, 321 (2000), pp. 1363-1364
[47.]
E. Davies, P. Littlejohns.
Views of Directors of Public Health about NICE Appraisal Guidance: results of a postal survey. National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
J Public Health Med, 24 (2002), pp. 319-325
[48.]
Money must be made available for NICE guidance, minister says.
[49.]
T.H.S. Dent, M. Sadler.
From guidance to practice: Why NICE is not enough.
BMJ, 324 (2002), pp. 842-845
[50.]
R. Jacob, M. McGregor.
Assessing the impact of health technology assessment.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 13 (1997), pp. 68-80
[51.]
S. Hill, S. Garattini, J. Van Loenhout, B.J. O’Brien.
De Joncheere Kees. Technology appraisal programme of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. A review by WHO.
[52.]
N. Devlin, D. Parkin, M. Gold.
WHO evaluates NICE.
BMJ, 327 (2003), pp. 1061-1062
[53.]
R. Cranovsky, Y. Matillon, D. Banta.
EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup Report on Coverage.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 13 (1997), pp. 287-332
[54.]
A.M. Garber.
Can technology assessment control health spending?.
Health Aff, 13 (1994), pp. 115-126
[55.]
B.R. Luce, R.E. Brown.
The use of technology assessment by hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and third-party payers in the United States.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 11 (1995), pp. 79-92
[56.]
S.H. Sheingold.
Technology assessment, coverage decisions, and conflict: the role of guidelines.
Am J Manag Care, 4 (1998), pp. 117-125
[57.]
J.M. Eisenberg, D. Zarin.
Health technology assessment in the United States. Past, present, and future.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 18 (2002), pp. 192-198
[58.]
D. Banta, W. Oortwijn.
Health technology assessment and health care in the European Union.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 16 (2000), pp. 626-635
[59.]
R. Cookson, A. Maynard.
Health technology assessment in Europe. Improving clarity and performance.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 16 (2000), pp. 639-650
[60.]
E. Jonsson.
Development of health technology assessment in Europe. A personal perspective.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 18 (2002), pp. 171-183
[61.]
N. Bosanquet.
NICE to see you.
Health Serv J, 113 (2003), pp. 30-31
[62.]
N. Fulop, P. Allen, A. Clarke, N. Black.
From health technology assessment to research on the organisation and delivery of health services: addressing the balance.
Health Policy, 63 (2003), pp. 155-163
[63.]
A. Towse, C. Pritchard.
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE): is economic appraisal working?.
Pharmacoeconomics, 20 (2002), pp. 95-105
[64.]
P.J. Neumann, M.C. Weinstein.
The diffusion of new technology: costs and benefits to health care.
Medical innovation at the crossroads. Vol. 2: The changing economics of medical technology,
[65.]
Drummond M. Does health technology assessment help and what are its limitations? The impact of health technology assessment on the innovative process: sail or anchor? Report from a pre-conference symposium held June 21st 2003, in Canmore, Alberta
[66.]
H.D. Banta, P.B. Andreasen.
The political dimension in health care technology assessment programs.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 6 (1990), pp. 115-123
[67.]
S. Perry, M. Thamer.
Medical innovation and the critical role of health technology assessment.
JAMA, 282 (1999), pp. 1869-1872
[68.]
P.E. Mohr, C. Mueller, P. Neumann, S. Franco, M. Milet, L. Silver, et al.
The impact of medical technology on future health care costs. Final Report.
Copyright © 2004. Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria
Idiomas
Gaceta Sanitaria

Suscríbase a la newsletter

Opciones de artículo
Herramientas
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?