Objectives: This article presents an overview of the practical methods and tools to support transnational Health Technology Assessment (HTA) that were developed and pilot tested by the European network for HTA (EUnetHTA), which involved a total of sixty-four Partner organizations.Methods: The methods differ according to scope and purpose of each of the tools developed. They included, for example, literature reviews, surveys, Delphi and consensus methods, workshops, pilot tests, and internal/public consultation.Results: Practical results include an HTA Core Model and a Handbook on the use of the model, two pilot examples of HTA core information, an HTA Adaptation Toolkit for taking existing reports into new settings, a book about HTA and health policy making in Europe, a newsletter providing structured information about emerging/new technologies, an interactive Web-based tool to share information about monitoring activities for emerging/new technologies, and a Handbook on HTA capacity building for Member States with limited institutionalization of HTA.Conclusions: The tools provide high-quality information and methodological frameworks for HTA that facilitate preparation of HTA documentation, and sharing of information in and across national or regional systems. The tools will be used and further tested by partners in the EUnetHTA Collaboration aiming to (i) help reduce unnecessary duplication of HTA activities, (ii) develop and promote good practice in HTA methods and processes, (iii) share what can be shared, (iv) facilitate local adaptation of HTA information, (v) improve the links between health policy and HTA.

Background: Prioritisation instruments were developed for patients on waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasties (AI) and cataract surgery (CI). The aim of the study was to assess their convergent and discriminant validity and inter-observer reliability.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to support health technology assessment (HTA) capacity building in Member States of the European Union with limited experience or without institutionalized HTA. The main output is a Handbook on HTA Capacity Building. Methods: The methods used were worldwide surveys of (i) HTA organizations, (ii) information management units, and (iii) HTA educational programs. The results of two surveys (i & ii) were combined with expert opinion to produce the Handbook on HTA Capacity Building. Results: Survey of HTA organizations (n = 41, response rate 35 percent). Most of the organizations were established by the government (61 percent), and all were not-for-profit. Working on HTA (80.5 percent) and doing research (63.4 percent) were the main lines of activity. Survey on information management units (n = 23, response rate 23 percent). Most (74.2 percent) of the responding HTA agencies reported having personnelThe authors thank the Partners in the EUnetHTA Work Package 8 (WP8) and colleagues of partner institutions that contributed to the work. Acknowledgements can be found elsewhere (7). This study was undertaken within the framework of the European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) Project, which was supported by a grant from the European Commission (Grant agreement 2005110 project 790621). The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors, and the European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. 75https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi

Background The use of apps for weight management has increased over recent years; however, there is a lack of evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these apps. The EVALAPPS project will develop and validate an assessment instrument to specifically assess the safety and efficacy of weight management apps. Objective The aim of this study was to reach a consensus among stakeholders on a comprehensive set of criteria to guide development of the EVALAPPS assessment instrument. A modified Delphi process was used in order to verify the robustness of the criteria that had been identified through a literature review and to prioritize a set of the identified criteria. Methods Stakeholders (n=31) were invited to participate in a 2-round Delphi process with 114 initial criteria that had been identified from the literature. In round 1, participants rated criteria according to relevance on a scale from 0 (“I suggest this criterion is excluded”) to 5 (“This criterion is extremely relevant”). A criterion was accepted if the median rating was 4 or higher and if the relative intraquartile range was equal to 0.67 or lower. In round 2, participants were asked about criteria that had been discarded in round 1. A prioritization strategy was used to identify crucial criteria according to (1) the importance attributed by participants (criteria with a mean rating of 4.00 or higher), (2) the level of consensus (criteria with a score of 4 or 5 by at least 80% of the participants). Results The response rate was 83.9% (26/31) in round 1 and 90.3% (28/31) in round 2. A total of 107 out of 114 criteria (93.9%) were accepted by consensus—105 criteria in round 1 and 2 criteria in round 2. After prioritization, 53 criteria were deemed crucial. These related mainly to the dimensions of security and privacy (13/53, 24.5%) and usability (9/53, 17.0%), followed by activity data (5/53, 9.4%), clinical effectiveness (5/53, 9.4%), and reliability (5/53, 9.4%). Conclusions Results confirmed the robustness of the criteria that were identified, with those relating to security and privacy being deemed most relevant by stakeholders. Additionally, a specific set of criteria based on health indicators (activity data, physical state data, and personal data) was also prioritized.

HTA promotion or initiation is influenced by the following: (i) key players that affect the time taken to establish HTA agencies; (ii) three models for HTA promotion and initiation: top-down (political interest), bottom-up (academic/research interest), and converging (political and academic/research interests); and (iii) motives, enablers, and barriers at the local context.