Health Technology Assessment in the Canadian Health Policy Arena
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article uses a sociopolitical perspective to analyse the results of a case study of six Canadian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies and their stakeholders: health care administrators, provider associations, patient associations and the biomedical industry. A total of 40 HTA agency representatives and 46 stakeholders were interviewed.A self-administered survey was also filled out by a larger number of respondents belonging to the four groups ( n = 405). Our study indicates that the concept of HTA has gained acceptance and that several groups want their concerns and priorities to be included in the agencies' agendas. Nevertheless, stakeholders question the political autonomy of HTA agencies and their ability to bring about concrete change.This article proposes strategies that may help improve relationships and exchanges between evaluators and their stakeholders. Evaluators must not be afraid to ask for more accountability in the way health technology policies are drafted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it