MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Threats to the value of Health Technology Assessment: Qualitative evidence from Canada and Poland

2018· article· en· W2904033551 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wiesława Dominika Wranik, Dorota Anna Zielińska, Liesl L. Gambold, Serperi Sevgur

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Policy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormularyReimbursementCritical appraisalPublic relationsQualitative researchHealth technologyThematic analysisValue (mathematics)Political sciencePublic economicsHealth careMedicineBusinessEconomic growthSociologyEconomicsNursingAlternative medicineSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health Technology Assessment is used to support the process of drug appraisal and reimbursement decisions in a variety of health systems. Examples can be found in mature Western countries, such as Canada, and in emerging economies of Central and Eastern Europe, such as Poland. The value of HTA in the process is influenced by the evidence used and the stakeholders involved. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with 29 members of two appraisal committees were held in Canada and Poland between July 2017 and March 2018. An a priori thematic framework was applied and supplemented with emergent themes. RESULTS: We report on the results of a core emergent theme - threats identified by respondents to the value of HTA in the formulary process. We classified these into internal threats that arise due to undue influence on the individuals involved in appraisal, and external threats that arise due to undue influence on the production of evidence. DISCUSSION: Findings align with previous evidence regarding political and corporate pressures on the process, and a perception of declining quality of evidence. We contribute to the discussion by highlighting the importance of motivation of experts involved in the appraisal process. CONCLUSIONS: The recognition of internal and external threats lays the groundwork for a discussion of policies used to mitigate them. We offer suggestions about potential policy responses.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.478
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.096 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PolicySame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207