Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jan;33(5):562-569.
doi: 10.1017/S0266462317000885. Epub 2017 Oct 25.

TAKING PATIENT HETEROGENEITY AND PREFERENCES INTO ACCOUNT IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS

Wietske Kievit  1 , Marcia Tummers  2 , Ralph van Hoorn  2 , Andrew Booth  3 , Kati Mozygemba  4 , Pietro Refolo  5 , Dario Sacchini  5 , Lisa Pfadenhauer  6 , Ansgar Gerhardus  4 , Gert Jan Van der Wilt  7
Affiliations

TAKING PATIENT HETEROGENEITY AND PREFERENCES INTO ACCOUNT IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS

Wietske Kievit et al. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017 Jan.

Abstract

Objectives: The INTEGRATE-HTA project provided methodology to evaluate complex technologies. This study provides guidance on how to retrieve and critically appraise available evidence on moderators and predictors of treatment effects and on patient preferences for treatment outcomes as a source of complexity.

Methods: Search filters for PubMed were developed by hand-searching a large volume of articles reporting on relevant aspects. Search terms were retrieved from selected papers and algorithmically combined to find the optimal combination of search terms. For the development of the appraisal checklists literature was searched in PubMed and Google Scholar together with citation chasing. For the CHecklist for the Appraisal of Moderators and Predictors (CHAMP) a Delphi procedure was used to value a set of eligible appraisal criteria retrieved from the literature.

Results: Search filters were developed optimized for different accuracy measures. The final version of CHAMP consists of a seventeen questions covering the design, analysis, results and transferability of results of moderator and predictor analysis. The final checklist for appraisal of literature on patient preferences for treatment outcomes consist of six questions meant to help the user to identify relevant quality issues together with a guidance toward existing tools concerning the appraisal of specific preference elicitation methods.

Conclusions: Incorporating knowledge on subgroups for whom a specific treatment will produce more benefit holds the promise of better targeting and, ultimately, enhancing overall effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare technology. Finally, incorporating information on preferences for treatment outcomes will foster health technology assessment that addresses outcomes that are important to patients.

Keywords: Complex interventions; Health technology assessment; INTEGRATE-HTA; Moderators; Patient preferences; Predictors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

LinkOut - more resources