Sedimentação da avaliação de tecnologias em saúde em hospitais: uma revisão de escopo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyze the level of sedimentation of hospital-based health technology assessment (HTA) in diverse contexts. A scoping review was conducted according to the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute, whose data analysis model consisted of the combination of Donabedian's structure, process, and outcome categories and the dimensions of the project Adopting Hospital Based Health Technology Assessment in European Union (AdHopHTA). We identified 270 studies, and after removing duplicates and reading full texts, 36 references met the eligibility criteria. Thirty-six hospitals were identified, of which there were 24 large-scale hospitals with extra bed capacity. Twenty-three hospitals were affiliated with universities. Canada stood out with five university hospitals, four of which with public funding. Half of the identified hospitals had hospital-based HTA units (18/36). Hospitals with sedimented levels of HTA corresponded to 75% of the sample (27/36), and the remainder had partially sedimented HTA, or 25% of the hospitals in the review (9/36). There were no hospitals with incipient sedimentation. Measuring the level of HTA sedimentation in the hospitals contributed to understanding how their participation has occurred in the field of hospital-based HTA. This study revealed the importance of identifying factors such as sustainability, growth, and evolution of hospital-based HTA in countries with and without a tradition in this field.
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 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 | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".