Page 40 - 1.HTAIn_Process_Manual
P. 40

CHAPTER 6


                  GUIDANCE MANUAL TO HTA-QUALITY ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST INDIA

                 6.  Background


                     A  study  (Prinja  et  al.)  reports  that  the  average  quality  score  for  economic

                 evaluations done in India is 65.1%. Out of 104 studies included in the analysis, only

                 16%  had  performed  PSA,  only  36%  considered  the  fiscal  implications  of  the

                 intervention and just 40% of the studies considered generalizability of their findings.

                     Since the primary aim of HTA is to generate evidence to ensure and facilitate the

                 process of informed healthcare decision making, it is important  to  standardize the

                 processes  pertaining  to  it.  Therefore,  it  was  decided  to  develop  a  standardized

                 tool/checklist to assess the quality of HTA studies being conducted in India.


                        The primary objective is to develop a comprehensive tool that will capture all
                 vital aspects of conducting an HTA study. This will enable to standardise the reporting

                 as well as reviewing processes pertaining to HTA studies being conducted in India.

                 Also, it would improve the quality of reporting practices thus ensuring transparency

                 and clarity.


                 6.1. Purpose of the guidance manual

                      The guidance manual to the checklist aims to ease the process of filling out the

                 checklist. It consists of the operational definitions of all the questions which are to be

                 filled out by the author as well as reviewer. This will help the author and the reviewer

                 to respond to the questions as expected.

                 6.2. Overview of the checklist


                      The checklist has been divided into two parts: a self-reporting section to be filled

                 by the author and the other to be filled by the reviewer. The reviewer checklist has

                 further been divided into two sections: to review the report/manuscript and the other

                 to review the model.








                                                                                                      39 | P a g e
   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45