Development of a Health Technology Assessment Quality Appraisal Checklist (HTA-QAC) for India.
Journal
Applied health economics and health policy
ISSN: 1179-1896
Titre abrégé: Appl Health Econ Health Policy
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101150314
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2023
01 2023
Historique:
accepted:
18
09
2022
pubmed:
20
10
2022
medline:
14
1
2023
entrez:
19
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We aim to develop a comprehensive checklist for evaluating Health Technology Assessment (HTA) studies commissioned in India. The primary objective of this work is to capture all vital aspects of an HTA study in terms of conduct, reporting and quality. The development of a quality appraisal checklist included 3 steps. First, a targeted review of the literature was done to gather information on existing HTA checklists. After reviewing these checklists, an initial draft of the HTA quality appraisal checklist (HTA-QAC) for India was prepared with discussion amongst the authors. Second, the draft checklist was reviewed by the members of the Technical Appraisal Committee (TAC) and their feedback was incorporated. Subsequently, the revised checklist was presented at a virtual meeting of the TAC. Finally, a pilot phase was undertaken to apply HTA-QAC for the approved HTA study reports. Three rounds of virtual discussions were held with the researchers who were involved in the conduct of these HTA studies to resolve any discordance in opinion or develop solutions for the problems in the use of the HTA-QAC followed by a further revision of the checklist. The HTA-QAC is divided into two parts: a self-reporting section to be completed by the author, and the other to be completed by the reviewer. The reviewer checklist has two sections: one to review the report and the other to review the model. The author section is in a self-reporting format, which includes details of basic study information, the rationale for the study, policy relevance, study description, study methods, reporting of model parameters, and results. The reviewer section of the checklist focuses on the quality aspect of the conducted study. The domains included in the report review include details on study methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion. The second part of the reviewer section of HTA-QAC constitutes a review of the model in terms of model assumptions, functionality, model inputs, calculations, uncertainty analysis, model output, and model validation. We recommend a standardised process of quality appraisal to ensure the high quality of HTA evidence for policy use in the Indian context. The proposed HTA-QAC will help authors to ensure standardised reporting, as well as allow reviewers to assess the quality of analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36260276
doi: 10.1007/s40258-022-00766-5
pii: 10.1007/s40258-022-00766-5
pmc: PMC9579659
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
11-22Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Références
Juzwishin DW. Evidence-informed decision-making in healthcare: the case for health technology assessment. World Hospitals Health Serv. 2010;46(1):10–2.
Kapiriri L, Baltussen R, Oortwijn W. Implementing evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment: a low income country perspective. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36(1):29–33.
doi: 10.1017/S0266462319003398
Shiell A, Donaldson C, Mitton C, Currie G. Health economic evaluation. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56(2):85.
doi: 10.1136/jech.56.2.85
Kumar M, Taylor FC, Chokshi M, Ebrahim S, Gabbay J, Taylor FC. Health technology assessment in India: the potential for improved healthcare decision-making. Natl Med J India. 2014;27(3):159–63.
Prinja S, Downey LE, Gauba V, Swaminathan S. Health technology assessment for policy making in India: current scenario and way forward. Pharmacoecon Open. 2018;2(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-017-0037-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s41669-017-0037-0
Downey LE, Mehndiratta A, Grover A, Gauba V, Sheikh K, Prinja S, Singh R, Cluzeau FA, Dabak S, Teerawattananon Y, Kumar S, Swaminathan S. Institutionalising health technology assessment: establishing the Medical Technology Assessment Board in India. BMJ Glob Health. 2017;2: e000259. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000259 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000259
Health Technology Assessment in India (HTAIn)—Framework [Internet]. Htain.icmr.org.in. 2022. https://htain.icmr.org.in/index.php/about-us/framework . Accessed 4 May 2022.
Sampson CJ, Arnold R, Bryan S, Clarke P, Ekins S, Hatswell A, Hawkins N, Langham S, Marshall D, Sadatsafavi M, Sullivan W. Transparency in decision modelling: what, why, who and how? Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(11):1355–69.
doi: 10.1007/s40273-019-00819-z
Prinja S, Chauhan AS, Angell B, Gupta I, Jan S. A systematic review of the state of economic evaluation for health care in India. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13(6):595–613.
doi: 10.1007/s40258-015-0201-6
Department of Health Research. Health Technology Assessment in India: A Manual. New Delhi, India: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; 2018.
Prinja S, Chugh Y, Rajsekar K, Muraleedharan VR. National Methodological Guidelines to Conduct Budget Impact Analysis for Health Technology Assessment in India. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 2021:1–3.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, Augustovski F, Briggs AH, Mauskopf J, Loder E, ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines-CHEERS Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231–50.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002
Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ. 1996;313(7052):275–83.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7052.275
Goetghebeur MM, Wagner M, Khoury H, Levitt RJ, Erickson LJ, Rindress D. Evidence and value: impact on DEcisionMaking–the EVIDEM framework and potential applications. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8(1):1–6.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-270
Chiou CF, Hay JW, Wallace JF, Bloom BS, Neumann PJ, Sullivan SD, Yu HT, Keeler EB, Henning JM, Ofman JJ. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care. 2003;1:32–44.
doi: 10.1097/00005650-200301000-00007
Home [Internet]. SIGN. 2021. https://www.sign.ac.uk/ . Accessed 8 Sep 2021.
Policies & publications [Internet]. Scottish Medicines Consortium. 2021. https://www.scottishmedicines.org.uk/about-us/policies-publications/ . Accessed 8 Sep 2021.
Brice R. CASP CHECKLISTS - CASP - Critical Appraisal Skills Programme [Internet]. CASP - Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. 2021. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/ . Accessed 8 Sep 2021.
Sacristan JA, Soto J, Galende I. Evaluation of pharmacoeconomic studies: utilization of a checklist. Ann Pharmacother. 1993;27(9):1126–33.
doi: 10.1177/106002809302700919
Nuijten MJ, Pronk MH, Brorens MJ, Hekster YA, Lockefeer JH, de Smet PA, Bonsel G, van der Kuy A. Reporting format for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;14(3):259–68.
doi: 10.2165/00019053-199814030-00003
Excellence C. Methods for the Development of NICE Public Health Guidance [Internet].
Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, Caulley L, Chaiyakunapruk N, Greenberg D, Loder E, Mauskopf J. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) 2022 explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2022;25(1):10–31.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008
Milat A, Newson R, King L. Evidence and evaluation guidance series, population and public health division. Sydney: NSW Ministry of Health; 2014.
Jbi.global. 2022. https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Critical_Appraisal-Checklist_for_Economic_Evaluations2017_0.pdf . Accessed 21 Apr 2022.
Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, Engl). 1999;3(2):1–34.
Andronis L, Barton P, Bryan S. Sensitivity analysis in economic evaluation: an audit of NICE current practice and a review of its use and value in decision-making. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2009;13(29):iii–x.
Gold M. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Medical Care. 1996:DS197-9.
HTAIN_ses. Htain.icmr.org.in. 2021. https://htain.icmr.org.in/modules/mod_flipbook_29/tmpl/book.html . Accessed 17 Dec 2021.
Health Technology Assessment in India (HTAIn) - HTA Completed Studies [Internet]. Htain.icmr.org.in. 2021. https://htain.icmr.org.in/virtual-library/hta-completed-studies . Accessed 8 Sep 2021.