You are here

Home » Content

SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİSİ DEĞERLENDİRME: KAVRAMSAL BİR ÇERÇEVE

HEALT TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Journal Name:

  • Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2016

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Health technologies are essential for a sustainable health system. Nowadays medical devices in particular are crucial in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of illness and disease, as well as patient rehabilitation. Health technology assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary activity that systematically, transparent, impartial, effectively summarizing the safety, clinical efficacy and effectiveness, cost, cost-effectiveness, organizational implications, social consequences, legal, ethical and organizational considerations of the application of a health technology HTA has significantly improved the decision-making process. Target of HTA is to provide scientific support to political decisions. The primary purpose of HTA is to help decision makers about the value of new and existing technologies. The purpose of this article is to provide the oretical informati on about HTA definition, principles, roles of stakeholders, the history and models. In addition, HTA Core Model and Mini HTA has created a comprehensive the oretical framework. HTA is not a new concept in Turkey and HTA of many alternative technologies are needed.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Surdurulebilir bir saglik sistemi i?in saglik teknolojileri gereklidir. Giinumuzde tibbi teknoloji hastaliklarin onlenmesi, tanisi ve tedavisi i?in oldugu kadar hastalarin rehabilitasyonu i?in de son derece onemlidir. Saglik Teknolojisi Degerlendirme (STD) bir saglik teknolojisinin kullaniminda; giivenlik, klinik etkililik, maliyet, maliyet etkililik, sosyal, yasal, etik ve organizyonel yonleri ile ilgili bilgileri sistematik, §effaf, tarafsiz, etkili bir §ekilde ozetleyen multidisipliner bir i§lemdir. STD karar verme surecini onemli 6l£ude geli§tirmektedir. STD'nin hedefi, politik kararlara bilimsel destek saglamaktir. STD'nin birincil amaci, yeni ve mevcut teknolojilerin degeri hakkinda karar vericilere yardimci olmaktir. Bu makalenin amaci STD'nin tanimi, ilkeleri, rolleri, payda§lari, tarih?esi ve modelleri hakkinda teorik bilgiler vermektir. Ayrica HTA Core Model ve Mini HTA hakkinda kapsamli bir teorik ?er?eve olu§turmaktir. Turkiye'de STD henuz yeni bir kavram olup bir?ok alternatif teknolojinin STD'ne ihtiya? duyulmaktadir.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-saglik-teknolojisi-degerlendirme-kavramsal-bir-cerceve.pdf
  • 23
215
249
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

ALLEN, N., Pichler, F., Wang, T., Patel, S. ve Salek, S. (2013). Development of archetypes for non-ranking classification and comparison of European National Health Technology Assessment Systems. Health Policy, 113(3), 305-12.
doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.09.007
BAKER, L. C. ve Wheeler, S. K. (1998). Managed Care and Technology Diffusion: The Case of MRI. Health Affairs, 17(5), 195-207.
doi:10.1377/hlthaff.17.5.195 BALTUSSEN, R. ve Niessen, L. (2006a). Priority setting of health
interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation, 4, 14. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-
4-14
BALTUSSEN, R. ve Niessen, L. (2006b). Priority setting of health
interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 4, 14. doi: 10.1186/1478¬7547-4-14
BANTA, D. (2003). The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy, 63(2), 121-132. doi:10.1016/S0168-8510(02)00059-
3
BANTA, D. (2009). What is technology assessment ? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 25(1), 7-9.
BANTA, D. ve Jonsson, E. (2009). History of HTA: Introduction.
International journal of technology assessment in health care, 25 Suppl 1, 1-6. doi:10.1017/S0266462309090321
BARKER, C. (1996a). The Health Care Policy Process. London: Sage Publications.
BARKER, C. (1996b). The Health Care Policy Process. London: Sage
Publications.
BATTiSTA, R. N. (2006). Expanding the scientific basis of health technology assessment: A research agenda for the next decade.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 22(03), 275-280. doi:10.1017/S0266462306051130
BAYiN, G. ve Akbulut, Y. (2012). Kanita Dayali Yakla§im ve Saglik Politikasi. Ankara Saglik Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(2), 115-132.
BOWEN, S. ve Zwi, A. B. (2005). Pathways to "evidence-informed" policy and practice: A framework for action. PLoS Medicine, 2(7), 0600¬0605. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020166
CENGiZ, A. U. (2009). Saglik Geri Odemesinde Farmakoekonomik
[243]
Arzu YiGiT - Ramazan ERDEM
Analizlerin Rolu: QALY Yaklasimi. Sosyal Guvenlik Kurumu Ba§kanligi, Uzmanlik Tezi, Ankara.
COHEN, J., Stolk, E. ve Niezen, M. (2007). Hurdle for Pharmaceuticals.
PharmacoEconomics, 25(9), 727-734.
COOKSON, R. (2000). Principles of justice in health care rationing. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26(5), 323-329. doi:10.1136/jme.26.5.323
CUCCHETTI, A., Cescon, M., Erroi, V. ve Pinna, A. D. (2013). Cost-effectiveness of liver cancer screening. Best practice & research. Clinical gastroenterology, 27(6), 961 -72.
doi:10.1016/j.bpg.2013.08.021
DACEHTA. (2005). Introduction to mini-HTA-a management and decision support tool for the hospital service. http://www.dace-hta.dk adresinden eri§ildi.
DRUMMOND, M. F., Schwartz, J. S., J6nsson, B., Luce, B. R., Neumann, P. J., Siebert, U. ve Sullivan, S. D. (2008). Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 24(3), 244-58; discussion 362-8. doi:10.1017/S0266462308080343
EHLERS, L., Vestergaard, M., Kidholm, K., Bonnevie, B., Pedersen, P. H.,
J0rgensen, T., ... Kj0lby, M. (2006). Doing mini-health technology assessments in hospitals: A new concept of decision support in health care? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 22(03), 295-301. doi:10.1017/S0266462306051178
ELBARBARY, M. (2010). Health technology assessment (HTA) in cardiac field. Journal of the Saudi Heart Association, 22(2), 77-84. doi:10.1016/j.jsha.2010.02.012
EUnetHTA. (2012). HTA Core Model for screening technologies v. 1.0. 17 Mart 2015 tarihinde
https://eunethta.fedimbo.belgium.be/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/ files/HTACoreModelForScreeningTechnologies 1 0Final_0.pdf adresinden eri§ildi.
EUnetHTA. (2013). EUnetHTA Joint Action 2, Work Package 8. HTA Core Model ® version 2.0; 2013. Pdf. Available from http://www.corehta.info/BrowseModel.aspx.
EUnetHTA. (2016). HTA Core Model Handbook. 17 Mart 2016 tarihinde
https://meka.thl.fi/htacore/ViewHandbook.aspx adresinden eri§ildi.
GALLEGO, G., van Gool, K. ve Kelleher, D. (2009). Resource allocation and health technology assessment in Australia: views from the local level. International journal of technology assessment in health care,
[244]
Saglik Teknolojisi Degerlendirme: Kavramsal Bir Qerceve
25(2), 134-40. doi:10.1017/S0266462309090187
GREENBERG, D., Peterburg, Y., Vekstein, D. ve Pliskin, J. S. (2005).
Decisions to adopt new technologies at the hospital level: insights from Israeli medical centers. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 21, 219-227. doi:doi:10.1017. S0266462305050294
GRUNDSTROM, J. P., Friberg, S. ve Medin, E. (2011). Mini-HTA Trends for Medical Devices in the Nordics. Value in Health, 14(3), A85. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2011.02.476
HAILEY, D. ve Menon, D. (1999). A Short History of Inahta. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 15(1), 236-242.
doi:10.1017/S0266462399015342
HAM, C. (1995). Health care rationing. Bmj, 310, 1483-1484.
doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1229d
HAM, C. (1997). Priority setting in health care: learning from international
experience. Health policy, 42, 49-66. doi:10.1016/S0168-8510(97)00054-7
HENDEE, W. R., Becker, G. J., Borgstede, J. P., Bosma, J., Casarella, W. J.,
Erickson, B. a, ... Wallner, P. E. (2010). Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology, 257(1), 240-245.
doi:10.1148/radiol.10100063
HILLMAN, A. L. ve Schwartz, J. S. (2014). The Adoption and Diffusion of CT and MRI in the United States. Medical Care, 23(11), 1283¬1294. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3765051 . adresinden eri§ildi.
HOFMANN, B. M. (2008). Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 24(4), 423-9. doi:10.1017/S0266462308080550
INAHTA. (2015). International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA). http://inahta.episerverhotell.net.
JONSSON, E. ve Banta, D. (1999). Management of health technologies: an international view. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 319(7220), 1293. doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7220.1293
KAHVECi, R. ve Dilma?, E. (2013). Hastane Tabanli Saglik Teknolojileri Degerlendirme Rehberi. Ankara Numune Egitim ve Arastirma Hastanesi Saglik Teknolojileri Degerlendirme Birimi Yayinlari.
KAHVECi, R. ve Mahmut, T. (2010). Kanita Dayali Saglik Politikasi ve Saglik Teknolojilerinin Degerlendirilmesi. Turkiye Klinikleri, v(6),
2020-2024.
KANAVOS, P., Ustel, I. ve Costa-Font, J. (2005). Turkiye'de tlaq Geri
[245]
Arzu YiGiT - Ramazan ERDEM
Odeme Politikasi. Turkiye'de Hag Geri Odeme Politikasi. Saglikta Umut Vakfi (SUVAK). http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/13818/ adresinden eri§ildi.
KANIS, J. A. ve Hiligsmann, M. (2014). The application of health technology assessment in osteoporosis. Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 28(6), 895-910.
doi:10.1016/j.beem.2014.04.001
KiRSTiN, 0. ve §ahin, G. M. (2016). Saglikta Bilimsel Karar Verme Araci Olarak Saglik Teknolojisi Degerlendirme.
http://tusside.tubitak.gov.tr/sites/images/Tusside/saglik_teknolojisi_ degerlendirme_white_paper.pdf.
KLEIN, R., Day, P. ve Redmayne, S. (1995). Rationing in the NHS: The dance of the seven veils in reverse. British medical bulletin, 51(4),
769-80.
KOCKAYA, G. ve Tatar, M. (Ed.). (2013). Tibbi cihazlarda saglik teknolojisi degerlendirmesi (DSO Tibbi cihaz teknik serisi). Dunya Saglik 0rgutu Yayinlari (Saglik Ekonomisi ve Politikasi Dernegi).
KRISTENSEN, F. B. (2008). Transnational collaboration on health
technology assessment - a political priority in Europel. M. V. Garrido, F. B. Kristensen, C. P. Nielsen ve R. Busse (Ed.), Health Technology Assessment and Health Policy-Making in Europe -Current status , challenges and potential i?inde (ss. 5-17). WHO Regional Office Europe.
KRISTENSEN, F. B., Lampe, K., Chase, D. L., Lee-Robin, S. H., Wild, C.,
Moharra, M., ... Bistrup, M. L. (2009). Practical tools and methods for health technology assessment in Europe: structures, methodologies, and tools developed by the European Network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 25 Suppl 2(2005110), 1-8. doi:10.1017/S0266462309990626
LEE, L. Y. K. (2003). Evidence-based practice in Hong Kong: Issues and implications in its establishment. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12(5), 618-624. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00791.x
LICHTENBERG, F., Tatar, M. ve Cali§kan, Z. (2010). Turkiye'de Yenilik?i ila?larin Ya§am Suresi , Hastaneye Yati§ ve Saglik Harcamalari Uzerine Etkileri, 1999-2010.
MITCHELL, M. D., Williams, K., Kuntz, G. ve Umscheid, C. a. (2011).
When the decision is what to decide: using evidence inventory reports to focus health technology assessments. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 27(2), 127-32.
[246]
Saglik Teknolojisi Degerlendirme: Kavramsal Bir Cer?eve
doi:10.1017/S0266462311000031
MUTLU, Ay§egul ;I§ik, A. K. (2012). Saglik Ekonomisine Giri§. Bursa: Ekin Yayinevi.
NEUMANN, P. J., Drummond, M. F., J, B., Luce, B. R., Schwartz, J. S. ve
Sullivan, S. D. (2010). Are Key Principles for improved health technology assessment supported and used by health technology assessment organizations ? The International Working Group for HTA Advancement. Health Care, 1, 71-78. doi:10.1017/S0266462309990833
NIELSEN, C. P., Santamera, A. S. ve Vondeling, H. (2008). Policy
processes and health technology assessment. M. V. Garrido, F. B. Kristensen, C. P. Nielsen ve R. Busse (Ed.), Health Technology Assessment and Health Policy-Making in Europe i?inde (ss. 19-30). World Health Organization.
NIESSEN, L. W., Grijseels, E. W. ve Rutten, F. F. (2000). The evidence-
based approach in health policy and health care delivery. Social
science & medicine (1982), 51(6), 859-69. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00066-6
OECD. (2014). Health-Statistics. 30 Kasim 2014 tarihinde www.oecd.org adresinden eri§ildi.
OECD. (2015). OECD Health Statistics. 1 Mayis 2015 tarihinde http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Table-of-Content-Metadata-OECD... adresinden eri§ildi.
OH, E., Imanaka, Y. ve Evans, E. (2005). Determinants of the diffusion of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 21(1), 73-80.
OORTWIJN, W., Mathijssen, J. ve Banta, D. (2010). The role of health technology assessment on pharmaceutical reimbursement in selected middle-income countries. Health Policy, 95(2-3), 174-184. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.12.008
OXMAN, A. D., Lavis, J. N., Lewin, S. ve Fretheim, A. (2009). SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP)1: What is evidence-informed policymaking? Health Research Policy and Systems, 7, 1-7. doi:10.1186/1478-This
PACKAGE, W., Hta, C., Joint, E., Partner, L., Office, F. ve Assessment, H.
T. (2012). HTA Core Model for screening technologies.
PALESH, M., Fredrikson, S., Jamshidi, H., Tomson, G. ve Petzold, M.
(2008). How is magnetic resonance imaging used in Iran?
International journal of technology assessment in health care, 24(4),
[247]
Arzu YiGiT - Ramazan ERDEM
452-8. doi:10.1017/S0266462308080598
ROBINSON, S., Williams, I., Dickinson, H., Freeman, T. ve Rumbold, B.
(2012). Priority-setting and rationing in healthcare: Evidence from the English experience. Social Science and Medicine, 75(12), 2386¬2393. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.014
RUBINSTEIN, A., Belizan, M. ve Discacciati, V. (2007). Are economic evaluations and health technology assessments increasingly demanded in times of rationing health services? The case of the Argentine financial crisis. International journal of technology assessment in health care, 23(2), 169-76. doi:10.1017/S0266462307070274
RYYNANEN, O. P., Myllykangas, M., Kinnunen, J. ve Takala, J. (1999). Attitudes to health care prioritisation methods and criteria among nurses, doctors, politicians and the general public. Social Science and Medicine, 49(11), 1529-1539. doi:10.1016/S0277-
9536(99)00222-1
S.B. (2014). Turkiye'de Obezite Tedavisinde Obezite Cerrahisinin Yeri, Saglik Teknolojisi Degerlendirme Daire Baskanligi. Ankara.
SACCHINI, D., Virdis, A., Refolo, P., Pennacchini, M. ve de Paula, I. C.
(2009). Health technology assessment (HTA): ethical aspects.
Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 12(4), 453-7.
doi:10.1007/s11019-009-9206-y
SACKETT, D., Rosenberg, W., Gray, J., Haynes, R. ve Richardson, W. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't - It's about integrating individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence. British medical Journal, 312(1), 71 -72.
doi:10.2307/29730277
SARGUTAN, E. (2005). Sa g l i k Teknolojisi Y6netimi. Hacettepe Saglik idaresi DergisiSaglik tdaresi, 8(1), 113-144.
SLADE, E. P. ve Anderson, G. F. (2001). The relationship between per capita income and diffusion of medical technologies. Health Policy, 58(1), 1-14. doi:10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00151-8
STEPHENS, J. M., Handke, B. ve Doshi, J. A. (2012). International survey of methods used in health technology assessment ( HTA ): does practice meet the principles proposed for good research ?, 29-44.
TATAR, M., §ahin, i. ve Buyukkayik?i, H. (2003). Saglik Hizmetlerinde 0ncelik Belirleme: Teori ve SSK Hastaneleri Y6neticilerinin G6ru§leri. Hacettepe Saglik idaresi Dergisi, 6(1), 3-20.
TAYLOR, R., Drummond, M., Salkeld, G. ve Sullivan, S. (2004). Inclusion
of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the
[248]
Saglik Teknolojisi Degerlendirme: Kavramsal Bir Cer?eve
fourth hurdle. BMJ : British Medical Journal, 329(7472), 972-975. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7472.972
TEPLENSKY, J. D., Pauly, M. V, Kimberly, J. R., Hillman, a L. ve
Schwartz, J. S. (1995). Hospital adoption of medical technology: an empirical test of alternative models. Health services research, 30(3),
437-465.
THE EUNETHTA. (2016). HTA Core Model User Guide (C. Version 1.).
National Institute for Health and Welfare, www.htacoremodel.info.
TOP, M. (2006). Saglik Hizmetlerinde 0nceliklerin Belirlenmesi: Turkiye'de 0ncelik Belirleme Surecinde Rol Alan Taraflarin G6ru§leri ve Saglik Politikalarina ili§kin Degerlendirmeleri.
Hacettepe Saglik idaresi Dergisi, 9(1), 93-123.
TUBiTAK. (2003). Saglik ve ilag Paneli Sonug Raporu. Ankara, www.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitak_content_files/vizyon2023/si/saglikveilac _son_surum.pdf.
VELASCO Garrido, M. ve Busse, R. (2005). Health technology assessment. An introduction to objectives, role of evidence, and structure in Europe. doi:10.1177/0022146513501993
WALT, G. (1994). Healt Policy. An Introduction to Process and Power,. London: Zed Books Ltd.
YiGiT, V. (2016). Manyetik Rezonans G6runtuleme Saglik Teknolojisinin Yayilimi. Turkiye Klinikleri Saglik Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 38-46. doi:10.5336/healthsci.2015-45601
YiGiT, V. ve Erdem, R. (2014). Saglik Hizmetlerinde Maliyet Etkililik Analizi. Suleyman Demirel Universitesi iktisadi ve idari Bilimler Fakultesi Dergisi, 19(2), 211-236.
YiGiT, V. ve Erdem, R. (2015). Turkiye'de Diyaliz ve B6brek Transplantasyonu Tedavisinin Maliyet Etkililik Analizi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 7(13),
182-205.
YILMAZ, E. ve C6l, M. (2014). Kanita Dayali Tip. Journal of Clinical and Analytical Medicine, 5(6), 537-42.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0146-0005(97)80013-4

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com