Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-trf7k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-01T17:00:25.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences in the identification process for new and emerging health technologies: Analysis of the EuroScan database

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Nora Ibargoyen-Roteta ,
Iñaki Gutierrez-Ibarluzea ,
Gaizka Benguria-Arrate ,
Lorea Galnares-Cordero  and
José Asua
Nora Ibargoyen-Roteta
Affiliation:
Osteba, Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment
Iñaki Gutierrez-Ibarluzea
Affiliation:
Osteba, Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment
Gaizka Benguria-Arrate
Affiliation:
Osteba, Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment
Lorea Galnares-Cordero
Affiliation:
Osteba, Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment
José Asua
Affiliation:
Osteba, Basque Office for Health Technology Assessment
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the EuroScan Database and to describe and compare the characteristics of the included technologies and participating agencies.

Methods: Data of interest were exported from the EuroScan Database to Excel and to SPSS. A descriptive analysis depending on the agency, type of technology, stage of diffusion, and technology purpose was conducted. A frequency distribution analysis of the diffusion stage for different technology types and assigned purposes was made with the EpiCalc 2000 statistical calculator. A p value of less than .05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results: Four agencies introduced the great majority of the technologies (81 percent), with drugs representing the 46.26 percent of the total, followed by devices (21.21 percent). The purpose of 24.45 percent of the identified technologies was not specified, and 34.58 percent of them were identified at the investigational or phase III stage. The frequency distribution of diffusion stage at identification was found to be similar for devices and diagnostics (p = .543), whereas drugs were identified earlier than devices (p <.001). Some agencies were found to focus their work on drugs, whereas others focused mainly on devices. Interagency differences were also observed with regard to the stage of diffusion at which technologies were identified.

Conclusions: This is the first analysis of one of the most important databases on new and emerging health technologies. Our study suggests that more active strategies should be designed to provide an earlier identification, mainly in the case of devices.

Keywords

Descriptive analysisNew and emerging health technologiesEuroScan

Information

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 367 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1. Banta, HD, Gelijns, A. An early system for the identification and assessment of future health care technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:607–612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Benguria Arrate, G, Gutierrez Ibarluzea, I, Llanos, A, et al. Red estatal de identificación, priorización y evaluación temprana de tecnologías sanitarias nuevas y emergentes. Madrid: Plan Nacional para el SNS del MSC. Servicio de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias del País Vasco (Osteba); 2006. Informes de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias: OSTEBA N° 2006/01.Google Scholar
3. Buehrlen, B; and the Inno-HTA consortium: Indicators for the assessment of healthcare innovations. Montréal HTAi 2008 meeting: Health Technology Assessment in Context. http://www.htai2008.org/en_ebook.phtml.Google Scholar
4. Carlsson, P, Jørgensen, T (eds). European workshop: Scanning the horizon for emerging health technologies, 1997. Copenhagen: DSI and SBU; 1998.Google Scholar
5. Carlsson, P, Jørgensen, T. Scanning the horizon for emerging health technologies: Conclusions from a European workshop. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:695–706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Douw, K, Vondeling, H, Eskildsen, D, Simpson, S. Use of the Internet in scanning the horizon for new and emerging health technologies: A survey of agencies involved in horizon scanning. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5:e6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Elshaug, AG, Hiller, JE, Moss, JR. Exploring policymakers’ perspectives on disinvestment from ineffective health care practices. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Murphy, K, Packer, C, Stevens, A, Simpson, S. Effective early warning systems for new and emerging health technologies: Developing an evaluation framework and an assessment of current systems. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:324–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Simpson, S, Packer, C, Carlsson, P, et al. Early identification and assessment of new and emerging health technologies: Actions, progress, and the future direction of an international collaboration-EuroScan. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:518–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed