PRIORITISATION OF NEW HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES FOR POST-INTRODUCTION OBSERVATION
RESULTS OF SELECTION AND WEIGHTING
Of the 15 prioritisation criteria initially proposed, 15 were classified by the panel of experts as clearly important (score >6). The median value was 7 in 11 of these criteria, 8 in 2 of these criteria and 9 in 1 of them. One of the initial criteria obtained a median value of 6 and was not selected.
| Table 2. List of prioritisation criteria grouped by domain | |
|---|---|
| Criterion | Explanation |
| Domain 1. Population/end-users | |
| Frequency of use | When it is known or envisaged that the technology may be applied to a large number of patients. |
| Disease burden | The condition or indication for which the technology is being used entails elevated mortality, morbidity, disability or affects the patient's quality of life to a major extent.. |
| Impact on end-user/population | The technology may bring about important improvements in the state of health/wellbeing of the subjects or population to which it is applied (e.g., population screening). |
| Vulnerable populations | The technology has been designed to be fundamentally used on a highly sensitive group (e.g., pregnant women, chronically ill patients). |
| Domain 2. Technology | |
| Innovative technology | Where the design, materials or their operation are totally new or very different to other already existing technologies and/or there are no previous technological alternatives for this clinical indication. |
| Invasive technology | Any technology that requires surgical intervention or aggressive medical procedure for its use. This also includes implantable devices or systems designed to be introduced, wholly or in part, into the human body, with the intention that these are to remain there post-procedure. |
| Different expectations of use | The health technology may be open to having different applications in clinical practice and being used in clinical indications other than those approved. |
| Criterion | Explanation |
| Domain 3. Safety/adverse effects | |
| Safety | There is evidence in the literature of adverse effects and/or it is envisaged that these may occur, due to the existence of adverse effects with similar technologies or procedures. |
| Undetected potential adverse effects | The available evidence is deemed insufficient for supplying information on infrequent adverse effects. Studies include a small number of patients overall or for given subgroups, and/or the study follow-up period is short for the purpose of adequately assessing the appearance of medium-/long-term adverse effects. |
| Risks | There is the possibility that health staff may suffer harm as a consequence of its use (e.g., radiation) or it poses an environmental hazard (e.g., dangerous waste). |
| Domain 4. Organisation/costs and other implications | |
| Need for training | Technologies which require an intense period of training and the results of which may, in great measure, depend on knowledge acquired and personal abilities (learning curve). |
| Financial impact | Necessary investment in infrastructure, equipment and/or cost of fungible goods, maintenance or human resources. |
| Organisational or structural impact | Technologies that demand multidisciplinarity, creation of new units, co-ordination among different units, or creation of specific units. |
| Other implications | It is envisaged that the technology may have an important impact on the ethical, social, cultural and/or legal sphere |
Table 3 shows the median weighting values assigned to the respective domains by the panel of experts as a whole.
| Table 3. Median weighting values assigned by the group of experts. | |
|---|---|
| Domain | Median score (%) |
| Population/end-users | 35% |
| Technology | 20% |
| Safety | 25% |
| Organisation/costs | 20% |
DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIORITISATION TOOL: PRITECTOOLS
EThe prioritisation tool (PriTecTools) consists of a web application which can be accessed via the web page of avalia-t. This tool lists the prioritisation criteria grouped by domains and allows for up to 50 different technologies to be scored and compared. By scoring the prioritisation criteria from 1 to 9, the tool automatically calculates the score for each domain and the total score for each technology, furnishing the absolute and weighted scores (absolute; base 100, i.e., transformation of weighted score on a scale of 0 to 100; % total score). Furthermore, it furnishes the results in a comparative manner for the different technologies selected. PriTec.observation enables reports to be generated and any data and results obtained in situ to be stored in the form of tables and figures, so that these may be used in subsequent work sessions. No data entered into the application are stored on the web, which guarantees the total confidentiality of any data introduced. The tool is available in both Spanish and English. A full explanation on the tool's operation and score calculation can be found on the web application.
