Application of evidence-informed deliberative processes in health technology assessment in low- and middle-income countries

How Least Developed to Lower-Middle Income Countries Use Health Technology Assessment: A Scoping Review

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary tool to inform healthcare decision-making. HTA has been implemented in high-income countries (HIC) for several decades but has only recently seen a growing investment in low- and middle-income countries. A scoping review was undertaken to define and compare the role of HTA in least developed and lower middle-income countries (LLMIC). MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from January 2015 to August 2021. A matrix comprising categories on HTA objectives, methods, geographies, and partnerships was used for data extraction and synthesis to present our findings. The review identified 50 relevant articles. The matrix was populated and sub-divided into further categories as appropriate. We highlight topical aspects of HTA, including initiatives to overcome well-documented challenges around data and capacity development, and identify gaps in the research for consideration. Those areas we found to be under-studied or under-utilized included disinvestment, early HTA/implementation, system-level interventions, and cross-sectoral partnerships. We consider broad practical implications for decision-makers and researchers aiming to achieve greater interconnectedness between HTA and health systems and generate recommendations that LLMIC can use for HTA implementation. Whilst HIC may have led the way, LLMIC are increasingly beginning to develop HTA processes to assist in their healthcare decision-making. This review provides a forward-looking model that LLMIC can point to as a reference for their own implementation. We hope this can be seen as timely and useful contributions to optimize the impact of HTA in an era of investment and expansion and to encourage debate and implementation.

Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide

BACKGROUND

Countries around the world are using health technology assessment (HTA) for health benefit package design. Evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs) are a practical and stepwise approach to enhance legitimate health benefit package design based on deliberation between stakeholders to identify, reflect and learn about the meaning and importance of values, informed by evidence on these values. This paper reports on the development of practical guidance on EDPs, while the conceptual framework of EDPs is described in a companion paper.

METHODS

The first guide on EDPs (2019) is further developed based on academic knowledge exchange, surveying 27 HTA bodies and 66 experts around the globe, and the implementation of EDPs in several countries. We present the revised steps of EDPs and how selected HTA bodies (in Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Scotland, Thailand and the United Kingdom) organize key issues of legitimacy in their processes. This is based on a review of literature via PubMed and HTA bodies' websites.

RESULTS

HTA bodies around the globe vary considerable in how they address legitimacy (stakeholder involvement ideally through participation with deliberation; evidence-informed evaluation; transparency; and appeal) in their processes. While there is increased attention for improving legitimacy in decision-making processes, we found that the selected HTA bodies are still lacking or just starting to develop activities in this area. We provide recommendations on how HTA bodies can improve on this.

CONCLUSION

The design and implementation of EDPs is in its infancy. We call for a systematic analysis of experiences of a variety of countries, from which general principles on EDPs might subsequently be inferred.

The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design in Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan strives to obtain Universal Health Coverage (UHC) by using health technology assessment (HTA) for determining their health benefit package. This paper reports on employing evidence-informed deliberative processes (EDPs), a practical and stepwise approach to enhance legitimate health benefit package design in Kazakhstan.

METHODS

The Ministry of Health of Kazakhstan approved the operationalization and application of EDPs during March 2019 and December 2020. We used a combination of desk research, conducting HTA, online surveys as well as a face-to-face workshop in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan, and two online workshops to prioritize 25 selected health technologies. During the latter, we tested two alternative approaches to prioritization: quantitative multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and the use of decision rules.

RESULTS

For each of the HTA reports, evidence summaries were developed according to the decision criteria (safety, social priority disease, severity of disease, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence, financial risk protection and budget impact). When appraising the evidence, the advisory committee preferred using quantitative MCDA, and only when this would result in any controversy could decision rules be applied.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite several challenges, including a partial disruption because of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of the process will likely play a key role in determining an evidence-informed and transparent health benefit package.

Improving Hospital Based Medical Procurement Decisions with Health Technology Assessment and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

This research proposes a new medical procurement decision-making tool named Evaluation of Medical Technology Procurement (EMTP), which combines Mini-health Technology Assessment (Mini HTA) with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), as well as the intuitionistic linguistic multi-criteria group decision model for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). This tool was applied to a medical device procurement decision in a large provincial general hospital with more than 5000 beds in China as a case study. Specifically, the AHP evaluation framework is first established to determine the evaluation dimensions and criteria. This goal is achieved by applying the AdHopHTA Mini-HTA template and gathering data from questionnaires completed by experts from 33 major public hospitals in Anhui Province, China. The professionals within the application hospital were invited to evaluate the alternative products in a pairwise comparison and obtain a ranking of their advantages and disadvantages. This goal is achieved using the intuitionistic linguistic fuzzy model to deal with the subjectivity and uncertainty that may be present in the professional evaluation by experts in different fields. At the same time, the Keeney-Raiffa MCDA (KRM) method was used to demonstrate the accuracy of the application results. The results show that our tool can achieve the same effect as the verification method while being more efficient, easier to use, and requiring fewer participants. The advantages and disadvantages of several evaluation methods combined with multi-criteria methods are discussed, including verification methods, pointing out the advantages and limitations of this research tool as well as the prospects for the future.

Key Issues Surrounding Appropriate Antibiotic Use for Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Narrative Review and the Implications

BACKGROUND

There is a concern with the growing use of antimicrobials across countries increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) rates. A key area within hospitals is their use for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSI) with concerns with timing of the first dose, which can appreciably impact on effectiveness, as well as duration with extended prophylaxis common among low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This is a concern as extended duration increases utilization rates and AMR as well as adverse events. Consequently, there is a need to document issues of timing and duration of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) among LMICs together with potential ways forward to address current concerns.

METHODS

Narrative review of timings and duration of SAP among LMICs combined with publications documenting successful approaches to improve SAP to provide future direction to all key stakeholder groups.

RESULTS

There were documented concerns with the timing of the first dose of antibiotics, with appropriate timing as low as 6.7% in Egypt, although as high as 81.9% in Turkey. There was also an extensive duration of SAP, ranging from long duration times in all patients in a study in Nigeria with a mean of 8.7 days and 97% of patients in Egypt to 42.9% of patients in Pakistan and 35% in Turkey. Successful interventions to improve SAP typically involved multiple approaches including education of all key stakeholder groups, monitoring of usage against agreed guidelines,as well as quality targets. Multiple approaches typically improved timing and duration as well as reduced costs. For instance, in one study appropriateness increased from 30.1% to 91.4%, prolonged duration reduced to 5.7% of patients, and mean costs of antibiotics decreased 11-fold.

CONCLUSION

There are considerable concerns with the timing and duration of SAP among LMICs. Multiple interventions among LMICs can address this providing future directions.