Dataset Information

Health Technology Assessment Development in Vietnam: A Qualitative Study of Current Progress, Barriers, Facilitators, and Future Strategies.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

To make more efficient use of limited resources, Vietnam incorporated health technology assessment (HTA) into the decision-making process for the health insurance benefit package in 2014. We evaluated progress in HTA institutionalization in Vietnam based on the theoretical framework developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, identified negative and conducive factors for HTA development, and finally suggested policy recommendations that fit the Vietnamese context.

Methods

Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted between December 2017 and March and April 2018 with a purposive sample of 24 stakeholders involved in decision-making for health insurance reimbursement. We employed thematic analysis to examine themes within the data.

Results

Despite a variety of activities (e.g., training and advising/mentoring) and a substantial level of output (e.g., policy statements, focal points assigned, and case studies/demonstration projects), Vietnam has not yet reached the policy decision stage based on HTA with scientific integrity and active stakeholder participation. Most respondents, except some clinicians, supported the use of HTA. The lack of capacity of human resources in the government sector and academia, the limited data infrastructure, the absence of guidelines, the government's interest in immediate budget-saving, and public resistance were identified as barriers to the advancement of HTA.

Conclusions

A structured data repository, guidelines based on the Vietnamese context for both policy decision-making at the central level and daily clinical decision-making at the micro-level, and integration of a participatory process into HTA are suggested as priorities for HTA institutionalization in Vietnam.

SUBMITTER: Lee HY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8392551 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDealing with cardiovascular disease is challenging, and people often struggle to follow rehabilitation and self-management programs. Several systematic reviews have explored quantitative evidence on the potential of digital interventions to support cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and self-management. However, although promising, evidence regarding the effectiveness and uptake of existing interventions is mixed. This paper takes a different but complementary approach, focusing on qualitative data related to people's experiences of technology in this space.ObjectiveThrough a qualitative approach, this review aims to engage more directly with people's experiences of technology that supports CR and self-management. The primary objective of this paper is to provide answers to the following research question: What are the primary barriers to and facilitators and trends of digital interventions to support CR and self-management? This question is addressed by synthesizing evidence from both medical and computer science literature. Given the strong evidence from the field of human-computer interaction that user-centered and iterative design methods increase the success of digital health interventions, we also assess the degree to which user-centered and iterative methods have been applied in previous work.MethodsA grounded theory literature review of articles from the following major electronic databases was conducted: ACM Digital Library, PsycINFO, Scopus, and PubMed. Papers published in the last 10 years, 2009 to 2019, were considered, and a systematic search with predefined keywords was conducted. Papers were screened against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Comparative and in-depth analysis of the extracted qualitative data was carried out through 3 levels of iterative coding and concept development.ResultsA total of 4282 articles were identified in the initial search. After screening, 61 articles remained, which were both qualitative and quantitative studies and met our inclusion criteria for technology use and health condition. Of the 61 articles, 16 qualitative articles were included in the final analysis. Key factors that acted as barriers and facilitators were background knowledge and in-the-moment understanding, personal responsibility and social connectedness, and the need to support engagement while avoiding overburdening people. Although some studies applied user-centered methods, only 6 involved users throughout the design process. There was limited evidence of studies applying iterative approaches.ConclusionsThe use of technology is acceptable to many people undergoing CR and self-management. Although background knowledge is an important facilitator, technology should also support greater ongoing and in-the-moment understanding. Connectedness is valuable, but to avoid becoming a barrier, technology must also respect and enable individual responsibility. Personalization and gamification can also act as facilitators of engagement, but care must be taken to avoid overburdening people. Further application of user-centered and iterative methods represents a significant opportunity in this space.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Guideline-based processes for the assessment of chest pain are lengthy and resource intensive. The IMProved Assessment of Chest Pain Trial (IMPACT) protocol was introduced in one Australian hospital Emergency Department (ED) to more efficiently risk stratify patients. The theoretical domains framework is a useful approach to assist in identifying barriers and facilitators to the implementation of new guidelines in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to understand clinicians' perceptions of facilitators and barriers to the use of the IMPACT protocol. METHODS:Guided by the theoretical domains framework, semi-structured interviews with nine ED clinical staff (medical and nursing) were undertaken in 2016. Content analysis was conducted independently by two researchers to identify those theoretical domains that facilitated or hindered protocol use. RESULTS:Domains most often reported as fundamental to the use of the IMPACT protocol included 'social/professional role and identity', 'environmental context and resources' and 'social influences'. These factors seemingly influenced professional confidence, with participants noting 'goals' that included standardisation of practice, enhanced patient safety, and reduced need for unnecessary testing. The domain 'environmental context and resources' also contained the most noted barrier - the need to inform new members of staff regarding protocol use. Opportunities to overcome this barrier included modelling of protocol use by staff at all levels and education - both formal and informal. CONCLUSIONS:A range of domains were identified by ED staff as influencing their chest pain management behaviour. Fundamental to its use were champions/leaders that were trusted and accessible, as well as social influences (other staff within ED and other specialty areas) that enabled and supported protocol use. Research investigating the implementation and perceived use of the protocol at other sites, of varied geographical locations, is warranted.