Skip navigation
  • Home
  • Browse
    • Communities
      & Collections
    • Browse Items by:
    • Publication Date
    • Author
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Department
  • Sign on to:
    • My MacSphere
    • Receive email
      updates
    • Edit Profile


McMaster University Home Page
  1. MacSphere
  2. Open Access Dissertations and Theses Community
  3. Open Access Dissertations and Theses
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11375/23843
Title: Health Technology Reassessment Frameworks
Authors: Maloney, Mary Alison
Advisor: Schwartz, Lisa
Department: Health Research Methodology
Keywords: Technology Assessment;Health Technology Reassessment;Disinvestment;Budgets;Qualitative Benefit Risk Frameworks
Publication Date: 2019
Abstract: BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES Overarching and decision-making frameworks may be used to facilitate the evaluation of prescription drug technologies to enable Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agency’s reassessment recommendations. The objectives of this thesis were to; 1) identify overarching and qualitative decision-making reassessment framework challenges and methodological gaps and; 2) develop and/or modify a framework to address challenges/gaps. The focus was on Canadian public prescription drug reimbursement with the hope that the findings may inform other jurisdictions. METHODS The first paper systematically identified drug disinvestment frameworks to describe framework components, challenges and solutions. A qualitative descriptive study was conducted in the second paper to explore whether a qualitative benefit-risk framework (Universal Methodology for Benefit-Risk Assessment (UMBRA)) could be used or modified to further enable Health Technology Reassessment (HTR) recommendations. The last research paper assessed the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health’s (CADTH’s) Therapeutic Review Process. Enhancements to this process were developed based on previous research and published frameworks. RESULTS Qualitative framework components were identified, disinvestment terms captured and challenges and solutions to drug disinvestment were compiled in Chapter 2. The participants interviewed in chapter 3 recognized that the Therapeutic Review assessment process did not include a qualitative deliberative framework. However, participants did not consider that all steps of the UMBRA framework were transferable to the assessment phase of HTR. Assessment of CADTH’s Therapeutic Review process, conducted in Chapter 4, found three areas for process enhancement: Therapeutic Review topic prioritization criteria; a qualitative assessment framework, and; publically accessible mechanisms for decision monitoring and performance measurement. CONCLUSION This thesis has identified reassessment framework enhancements that are hypothesized to address HTR challenges and specific solutions to enhance CADTH’s Therapeutic Review Framework. Next steps include further evaluation and pilot testing of these proposed enhancements to enable additional Canadian stakeholder feedback.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11375/23843
Appears in Collections:Open Access Dissertations and Theses

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Maloney_Mary_A_finalsubmission201901_PhD.pdf
Access is allowed from: 2020-01-26
1.94 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show full item record Statistics


Items in MacSphere are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Sherman Centre for Digital Scholarship     McMaster University Libraries
©2022 McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L8 | 905-525-9140 | Contact Us | Terms of Use & Privacy Policy | Feedback

Report Accessibility Issue