OHTAC decision determinants: systematic review

1. OHTAC decision determinants:systematic review Ann-Sylvia Brooker, MSc, PhD Joanna Bielecki, MISt Murray Krahn, MD, MSc April 14, 2015 Saskatoon, SK

2. Research Objective and Research Questions: The objective of the literature review is to examine the decision-making methodologies applicable to the health technology appraisal process (decision-making process). Research Questions : • ***What decision criteria are used during the decision-making process? • What methods are used to evaluate the decision criteria (e.g. assigned weights, ranked, rated)? • What decision-making methods are used to integrate these criteria in order to develop recommendations regarding funding decisions concerning health technologies (e.g. are decision rules used?).

3. Inclusion Criteria • Information from national and international health technology organizations and insurance agencies making policy recommendations or funding coverage decisions concerning the technology. • Published research describing the decision-making methods of HTA organizations. • What is • What should be • Also – criteria for resource allocation

4. Exclusion Criteria • Primary research evaluating the effectiveness of specific aspects of the decision-making process. • Theoretical/methodological papers that discussed only one decision criteria (e.g. HTA and ethics) These articles were forwarded for consideration to the relevant OHTAC sub committees . • Information regarding HTA agency operations. • Information regarding sources of evidence. • Literature that described the details of evaluating a technology.

5. Literature Search • Search in published academic literature; between February 2007 and March 2013. • Reference list of published articles. • HTA agency website search. • An email was sent to every member of INA-HTA re: decision criteria or decision-making processes.

6. Results • 1479 abstracts were scrutinized from academic literature. • 18 members of INAHTA responded to the email. The response rate was 32% (18/56). 4/18 (22%) did not have relevant documentation in English or French. Another 5/18 (28%) responded that their agency had an advisory role only. However, 4 organizations had relevant documentation.

7. Results • 26 documents are included in this review. • Documents from US, Canada, Alberta, Ghana, Germany, Australia, South Africa, Singapore, Chile, UK, USA, Netherlands, Brazil, Scotland, New Zealand, England.(English speaking)

13. Summary of Decision Criteria

15. Decision criteria - Terms

16. Decision criteria - Terms

18. Decision criteria - Terms