MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7027616026

Der Einfluss von HTA-Berichten auf die gesundheitspolitische Entscheidungsfindung

2005· article· en· W7027616026 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGerman Medical Science (German Research Foundation) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Government (linguistics)NucleofectionCircumstantial evidenceLimitingContext (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research Question The objective of health technology assessment (HTA) is to support decision-making in the health sector by assessing health technologies systematically under medical, economic, social, and ethical aspects. The present study aims at identifying ways of enabling the impact of HTA on decision-making processes in the German health sector. The authors formulate three research questions: (1) Can methods be identified that allow a valid assessment of the impact of HTA reports on the decision-making processes? (2) Has been shown an impact of HTA reports on decision-making processes in the health sector? (3) Which are the factors responsible for a high or a low impact of HTA? Methods The authors include studies that present a methodology to assess the impact of HTA, that investigate the impact of HTA on decision-making processes, or study the factors that might enhance or hinder the impact of HTA. Medical and social science electronic databases, lists of publications and projects of the European, North American, Canadian, and Australian HTA agencies, as well as the bibliography of the identified articles and documents are looked through. The writers do a handsearch of the International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care and contact 64 HTA agencies by a letter, requesting information on investigations that might not have been published. Results Abstracts from about 5,000 articles are read. 57 articles are ordered as full-text, 43 are finally included and 14 excluded. (1) In eight studies interviews with decision-makers are used to elicit the information, in three studies document analysis is employed, and in six surveys the results rely only on the observations and interpretations of the authors. One study analyses service data and in nine examinations more than one of the methods listed above are employed. Only in two studies pre-defined indicators were used and only in one clinical trial a prospective design is chosen. (2) In nine studies the impact of a population of HTA reports is analysed: Among these, seven find that more than 70% of the reports have an impact on the decision-making process, in one study 50% of the reports have none or only a minimal impact. In one study on the impact of 50 short HTA reports, it is found that they contribute valuable information but do not influence decisions. However, because of methodological flaws the evidence base for these results is rather limited. Most of the conclusions presented in the publications are based on the appraisal of the authors who are often related to the program of which the impact has been "evaluated". (3) The writers divide the factors that are identified as modifying the degree of impact of the HTA reports in two groups: context factors and factors that are connected to the developing process, the subject, the format, the content, or the quality of the reports. However, the relevance of these factors has to be assessed with caution: none of the publications has the relevance for a primary research question and in none of the studies is the relevance of the factors investigated in a prospective and systematic manner. Conclusion There is little experience with study designs or methods that allow a valid assessment of the impact of HTA reports on the decision-making process in the health sector. However, some approaches, such as the use of pre-defined indicators, were identified that should be pursued and elaborated in further studies. Due to the lack of a developed methodology only limited conclusions related to the impact of HTA reports can be drawn. Among the studies that show a relevant impact, most are methodological. However, results from qualitative studies caution against assuming a causal relationship where a mere coincidence between the recommendations of an HTA report and health policy is identified. In order to produce evidence-based conclusions regarding the impact of HTA reports, validated indicators should be used. Study design should also aim at controlling for other influencing factors. None of the studies explicitly aim at examining the role of the factors that might be responsible for a low or high impact of the HTA reports. The non-systematic retrospective analyses do not allow reliable conclusions regarding the relevance of these factors. Therefore the factors identified here should only serve for hypothesis formation. On the basis of these studies it is not possible to give evidence-based recommendations on the way how to increase the impact of HTA on decision-making in Germany. Instead a concept for evaluation should be developed that combines quantitative and qualitative methods and considers the following questions: (1) What kind of impact should be measured? (2) Which are the target groups and at which level of the health system are they located? (3) Which are the outcome parameters and how can they be measured? (4) Which are the potential impact enhancing or limiting factors?

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 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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.038

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 head0.415
GPT teacher head0.552
Teacher spread0.137 · 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