vix.ing · top · new · best · stats · spec

Development and implementation of a value framework for rapid health technology assessment reports: enhancing evidence-informed decision making in resource-constrained settings

2025/01/01 by Andrea Alcaraz, Fernando Argento, Verónica Alfie +7
Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Health Professions · Social Sciences · #Delphi Technique in Research #Health Policy Implementation Science #Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

paper · pdf · doi:10.1017/s0266462325100160

openalex publication_date 2025/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/19

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Value frameworks play a crucial role in bridging the gap between evidence and decision making in health care, particularly in settings with limited resources as low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). In this study, we present the development of a value framework (VF) targeted to provide coverage recommendations in rapid health technology assessment reports (rHTA) as well as its first 5 years of implementation. METHODS: We performed an exhaustive literature search with the aim to identify existing VFs and their dimensions followed by the generation of a VF proposal through a mixed methods, qualitative-quantitative approach including a Delphi panel to weigh the criteria and correlate them with the subsequent recommendations. To describe its implementation, we present the results of 264 rHTA reports from 2017 to 2022. RESULTS: The value framework has three main domains (quality of evidence, net benefit, and economic impact). We adapted widely used methodologies for quality of evidence and net benefit domains. The economic impact domain was the most complex to assess, so an ad hoc method was developed. Analysis of 265 HTAs revealed the distribution of recommendations across different criteria and technology types. Most were for drugs (40.5 percent) or therapeutic procedures (36 percent). With a five-category final recommendation, 0.8 percent were favorable, 19.7 percent were uncertain, and 44 percent were unfavorable. CONCLUSION: The VF demonstrated its versatility and practicality in meeting the needs of rHTA audience, and can facilitate evidence-informed decision making. This VF serves as a valuable tool for conducting adaptive rHTAs and supports decision-making processes in Argentina and similar LMIC contexts.

Citations

Related