Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T07:52:04.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WHAT ARE THE RELATIVE MERITS OF THE SOURCES USED TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR THE NHS HTA PROGRAMME?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2001

Deborah Chase ,
Ruairidh Milne ,
Ken Stein  and
Andrew Stevens
Deborah Chase
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Ruairidh Milne
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
Ken Stein
Affiliation:
North and East Devon Health Authority
Andrew Stevens
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The NHS Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme runs an annual process of identifying suggestions for health technology assessment. The objective of this paper is to describe and evaluate the relative importance of the different sources used by the program in 1998 to identify potential priorities. There were four different sources: a) a widespread consultation of healthcare commissioners, providers and consumers; b) research recommendations from systematic reviews; c) reconsidering previous research priorities which had not been taken forward for funding; and d) horizon scanning. Collectively, the four sources generated just over 1,100 HTA suggestions. By far the largest source of suggestions and priorities was the widespread consultation. However, the success rate of this source, in terms of being commissioned, was low. Research recommendations from systematic reviews provided the second largest source of priorities and the best success rate of all sources. Value was found from different sources for different healthcare areas.

Keywords

Health technology assessmentidentificationHealth priorities
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 16 , Issue 03 , July 2000 , pp. 743 - 750
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press