Hospital staff perspectives towards health technology assessment: data from a multidisciplinary survey.
Attitude of Health Personnel
Budgets
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Economics, Medical
/ organization & administration
Efficiency, Organizational
Humans
Patient Care Team
/ organization & administration
Patient Preference
Patient Safety
Personnel, Hospital
/ psychology
Prospective Studies
Quality of Life
Sex Factors
Social Environment
Technology Assessment, Biomedical
/ organization & administration
Hospital-based health technology assessment
hospital personnel survey
multi criteria decision analysis
Journal
Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Jul 2019
23 Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
18
11
2018
accepted:
10
06
2019
entrez:
25
7
2019
pubmed:
25
7
2019
medline:
30
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Technology adoption in hospitals is usually based on cost-effectiveness analysis, feasibility and potential success. Different countries have embraced a range of principles to accomplish an effective comprehensive process of health technology assessment (HTA). The aim of the study was to analyse the viewpoints and relative weight of technology-oriented hospital staff members toward the clinical, social, technological and economic aspects of HTA. Using a structured questionnaire, a survey was conducted among different professionals in an 850-bed hospital. We revealed a range of viewpoints among hospital staff members according to their personal characteristics and professional standpoints. The clinical aspects of HTA were considered 'highly important' (HI) by most participants, especially the 'lifesaving' parameter. Similarly, the 'lack of effective alternative technology' was ranked HI by a high percentage of participants, independent of their profession. Economic aspects were ranked HI only by half of the participants, while social and technological aspects were ranked HI only by a relatively low percentage. Nurses added 'improving quality of life', 'increasing teamwork efficiency' and 'improving medical standards'. Allied health professionals focused on 'lack of effective alternative technologies' as a main argument for adoption of HTA, alongside increasing efficiency, budget savings and contribution to hospital reputation. Engineers emphasised the requirement of significant investment in infrastructure and increasing efficiency. Administrators ranked patient experience as HI. Interestingly, the high ranking of social aspects correlated with older responders, while junior staff ranked safety significantly higher. A multi-perspective multidisciplinary approach would be beneficial for policy-makers at hospitals and even on a national scale in Israel.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Technology adoption in hospitals is usually based on cost-effectiveness analysis, feasibility and potential success. Different countries have embraced a range of principles to accomplish an effective comprehensive process of health technology assessment (HTA). The aim of the study was to analyse the viewpoints and relative weight of technology-oriented hospital staff members toward the clinical, social, technological and economic aspects of HTA.
METHODS
METHODS
Using a structured questionnaire, a survey was conducted among different professionals in an 850-bed hospital.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We revealed a range of viewpoints among hospital staff members according to their personal characteristics and professional standpoints. The clinical aspects of HTA were considered 'highly important' (HI) by most participants, especially the 'lifesaving' parameter. Similarly, the 'lack of effective alternative technology' was ranked HI by a high percentage of participants, independent of their profession. Economic aspects were ranked HI only by half of the participants, while social and technological aspects were ranked HI only by a relatively low percentage. Nurses added 'improving quality of life', 'increasing teamwork efficiency' and 'improving medical standards'. Allied health professionals focused on 'lack of effective alternative technologies' as a main argument for adoption of HTA, alongside increasing efficiency, budget savings and contribution to hospital reputation. Engineers emphasised the requirement of significant investment in infrastructure and increasing efficiency. Administrators ranked patient experience as HI. Interestingly, the high ranking of social aspects correlated with older responders, while junior staff ranked safety significantly higher.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A multi-perspective multidisciplinary approach would be beneficial for policy-makers at hospitals and even on a national scale in Israel.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31337398
doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0469-3
pii: 10.1186/s12961-019-0469-3
pmc: PMC6651984
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
72Références
BMJ. 2004 Oct 30;329(7473):990-1
pubmed: 15514320
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(6):457-65
pubmed: 26899230
Healthc Financ Manage. 2003 Oct;57(10):70-4
pubmed: 14560583
Am J Med Qual. 2015 Sep-Oct;30(5):432-40
pubmed: 24951105
Health Policy. 2011 Oct;102(2-3):126-35
pubmed: 21071107
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017 Jan;33(2):307-314
pubmed: 28580892
Health Res Policy Syst. 2015 Apr 28;13:24
pubmed: 25928535
South Med J. 2017 Sep;110(9):571-577
pubmed: 28863221
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Jul;25 Suppl 1:7-9
pubmed: 19519979
Syst Rev. 2014 Oct 28;3:129
pubmed: 25352182
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015 Jan;31(5):314-23
pubmed: 26711222
Nurs Ethics. 2008 Sep;15(5):614-30
pubmed: 18687816
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Jul;25 Suppl 1:19-23
pubmed: 19505349
Health Policy. 2010 Aug;96(3):262-4
pubmed: 20206403
Health Policy. 2003 Feb;63(2):121-32
pubmed: 12543525
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Sep;188:137-156
pubmed: 28772164
Health Policy. 2000 Dec;54(3):169-85
pubmed: 11154787
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Fall;24(4):518-25
pubmed: 18828949
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017 Jan;33(2):227-231
pubmed: 28641608
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Dec;25 Suppl 2:1-8
pubmed: 20030885
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Jul;25 Suppl 1:10
pubmed: 19500433
Health Policy. 2015 Feb;119(2):127-36
pubmed: 25267072
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997 Spring;13(2):287-332
pubmed: 9194354
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Oct;29(4):424-34
pubmed: 24290336
Value Health. 2012 May;15(3):534-9
pubmed: 22583464
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009 Dec;25 Suppl 2:28-36
pubmed: 20030888
BMC Health Serv Res. 2015 Apr 17;15:164
pubmed: 25927636
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016 Feb;14(1):29-40
pubmed: 26519081
Health Policy. 2012 Feb;104(2):172-8
pubmed: 21835488
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017 Jan;33(4):529-533
pubmed: 28814351
Health Policy. 2009 Apr;90(1):81-8
pubmed: 18783844
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015 Nov 06;5(1):1-3
pubmed: 26673643
Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon). 1987 Jan;8(11):7-71
pubmed: 10311886
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012 Oct;28(4):460-5
pubmed: 23062518
Qual Health Res. 2017 Jul;27(9):1359-1369
pubmed: 28682712
Health Policy. 2019 Feb;123(2):182-190
pubmed: 28420539
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012 Jul;28(3):333-8
pubmed: 22980713
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2017 Apr;43(4):166-175
pubmed: 28325204
Health Policy. 2010 May;95(2-3):174-84
pubmed: 20074829
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018 Jan;34(2):205-211
pubmed: 29656722
Singapore Med J. 2006 Mar;47(3):187-92; quiz 193
pubmed: 16518551
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2017 Jan-Mar;8(1):21-31
pubmed: 28949870
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997 Spring;13(2):144-85
pubmed: 9194351