Dataset Information

When does NICE recommend the use of health technologies within a programme of evidence development? : a systematic review of NICE guidance.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is growing interest internationally in linking reimbursement decisions with recommendations for further research. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) can issue guidance to approve the routine use of a health intervention, reject routine use or recommend use within a research programme. These latter recommendations have restricted use to 'only in research' (OIR) or have recommended further research alongside routine use ('approval with research' or AWR). However, it is not currently clear when such recommendations are likely to be made.

Objectives

This study aims to identify NICE technology appraisals where OIR or AWR recommendations were made and to examine the key considerations that led to those decisions.

Methods

Draft and final guidance including OIR/AWR recommendations were identified. The documents were reviewed to establish the characteristics of the technology appraisal, the cost effectiveness of the technologies, the key considerations that led to the recommendations and the types of research required.

Results

In total, 29 final and 31 draft guidance documents included OIR/AWR recommendations up to January 2010. Overall, 86 % of final guidance included OIR recommendations. Of these, the majority were for technologies considered to be cost ineffective (83 %) and the majority of final guidance (66 %) specified the need for further evidence on relative effectiveness. The use of OIR/AWR recommendations is decreasing over time and they have rarely been used in appraisals conducted through the single technology appraisal process.

Conclusion

NICE has used its ability to recommend technologies within research programmes, although predominantly within the multiple technology appraisal process. OIR recommendations have been most frequently issued for technologies considered cost ineffective and the most frequently cited consideration is uncertainty related to relative effectiveness. Key considerations cited for most AWR recommendations and some OIR recommendations included a need for further evidence on long-term outcomes and adverse effects of treatment.

SUBMITTER: Longworth L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3561612 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundData extraction forms link systematic reviews with primary research and provide the foundation for appraising, analysing, summarising and interpreting a body of evidence. This makes their development, pilot testing and use a crucial part of the systematic reviews process. Several studies have shown that data extraction errors are frequent in systematic reviews, especially regarding outcome data.MethodsWe reviewed guidance on the development and pilot testing of data extraction forms and the data extraction process. We reviewed four types of sources: 1) methodological handbooks of systematic review organisations (SRO); 2) textbooks on conducting systematic reviews; 3) method documents from health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and 4) journal articles. HTA documents were retrieved in February 2019 and database searches conducted in December 2019. One author extracted the recommendations and a second author checked them for accuracy. Results are presented descriptively.ResultsOur analysis includes recommendations from 25 documents: 4 SRO handbooks, 11 textbooks, 5 HTA method documents and 5 journal articles. Across these sources the most common recommendations on form development are to use customized or adapted standardised extraction forms (14/25); provide detailed instructions on their use (10/25); ensure clear and consistent coding and response options (9/25); plan in advance which data are needed (9/25); obtain additional data if required (8/25); and link multiple reports of the same study (8/25). The most frequent recommendations on piloting extractions forms are that forms should be piloted on a sample of studies (18/25); and that data extractors should be trained in the use of the forms (7/25). The most frequent recommendations on data extraction are that extraction should be conducted by at least two people (17/25); that independent parallel extraction should be used (11/25); and that procedures to resolve disagreements between data extractors should be in place (14/25).ConclusionsOverall, our results suggest a lack of comprehensiveness of recommendations. This may be particularly problematic for less experienced reviewers. Limitations of our method are the scoping nature of the review and that we did not analyse internal documents of health technology agencies.

Project description:The World Health Organization (WHO) recently put forth a Global Strategy on Digital Health 2020-2025 with several countries having already achieved key milestones. We aimed to understand whether and how digital health technologies (DHTs) are absorbed in Africa, tracking Ethiopia as a key node. We conducted a systematic review, searching PubMed-MEDLINE, Embase, ScienceDirect, African Journals Online, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases from inception to 02 February 2021 for studies of any design that investigated the potential of DHTs in clinical or public health practices in Ethiopia. This review was registered with PROSPERO ( CRD42021240645 ) and it was designed to inform our ongoing DHT-enabled randomized controlled trial (RCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04216420 ). We found 27,493 potentially relevant citations, among which 52 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 596,128 patients, healthy individuals, and healthcare professionals. The studies involved six DHTs: mHealth (29 studies, 574,649 participants); electronic health records (13 studies, 4534 participants); telemedicine (4 studies, 465 participants); cloud-based application (2 studies, 2382 participants); information communication technology (3 studies, 681 participants), and artificial intelligence (1 study, 13,417 participants). The studies targeted six health conditions: maternal and child health (15), infectious diseases (14), non-communicable diseases (3), dermatitis (1), surgery (4), and general health conditions (15). The outcomes of interest were feasibility, usability, willingness or readiness, effectiveness, quality improvement, and knowledge or attitude toward DHTs. Five studies involved RCTs. The analysis showed that although DHTs are a relatively recent phenomenon in Ethiopia, their potential harnessing clinical and public health practices are highly visible. Their adoption and implementation in full capacity require more training, access to better devices such as smartphones, and infrastructure. DHTs hold much promise tackling major clinical and public health backlogs and strengthening the healthcare ecosystem in Ethiopia. More RCTs are needed on emerging DHTs including artificial intelligence, big data, cloud, cybersecurity, telemedicine, and wearable devices to provide robust evidence of their potential use in such settings and to materialize the WHO's Global Strategy on Digital Health.