bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
PD180 Strategies To Minimize The Impact Of The COVID-19 Pandemic On People With Disabilities: Systematic Review And Deliberative Dialogues
Authors: Elias Flávia Tavares , Rezende Débora , Ramos Maira 
Published: January 2025

IntroductionThe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was unequal, leading to losses for specific population groups already exposed to social vulnerabilities in the pre-pandemic period—for example, the inequity in access to health care among people with disabilities. The study aimed to identify strategies for people with disabilities during a public health emergency, in particular the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The population was adults with disabilities. There were no restrictions regarding the type of disability, which could include visual, auditory, intellectual, physical, or multiple disabilities. The COVID-19 pandemic was the study exposure and the outcomes were strategies aimed at improving prevention and health care for the target population during the pandemic period. A literature search was conducted in June 2021 and updated in November 2022 in the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, the Virtual Health Library, CINAHL, PDQ-Evidence, Health System Evidence, PEDro, and PsycInfo. The protocol for the systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021266341).ResultsThe systematic review included 29 studies of 49 non-pharmacological strategies. The evidence was synthesized and structured into categories. The following eight categories were found: habitation and infrastructure; work; occupation and income; planning and management; social assistance; telehealth; communication; comprehensive health care; and education for people with disabilities. The deliberative dialogue allowed stakeholders—represented by people with disabilities, policymakers, decision-makers, health professionals, members of associations, and researchers—to actively engage in constructing the synthesis.ConclusionsThe stakeholder engagement concluded that the project promoted social inclusion and equal, universal, and comprehensive access to social rights by people with disabilities. The experiences of stakeholders in society were incorporated into public policy and guided decision-making in health and social care.
PD184 Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Topics That Respond To National Needs: Considerations Around The Topic Selection Process When Institutionalizing HTA
Authors: Peacocke Elizabeth , Heupink Lieke , Ananthakrishnan Aparna , Frønsdal Katrine 
Published: January 2025

IntroductionMost HTA processes follow similar institutional mechanisms, starting with topic selection and prioritization, followed by analysis (appraisal, deliberation, and decision-making) and implementation. The process of conducting an HTA is financially and time intensive. Therefore, to sustain HTA decision-makers, especially in countries with limited capacity, selecting topics for HTA that most respond to national needs is crucial.MethodsInformation on topic identification, selection, and prioritization (TISP) processes was taken from a recent report published by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH) on how to support capacity building for HTA in low- and middle-income countries. An unpublished survey of 29 national HTA organizations around the world was also performed by the NIPH asking about their TISP processes. Issues around the institutional and organizational aspects necessary for explicit and transparent TISP processes were identified and discussed through an iterative process.Results
The comprehensiveness of TISP processes varied according to each country’s needs and the types of decisions supported by HTA. Accordingly, the resources available for allocation within the health system, the number of dedicated personnel available to complete HTAs, and the number stakeholders and institutions involved in the decision-making process may all be relevant considerations for TISP. In countries where HTA was well-established, the process for TISP was usually institutionalized or at least somewhat formalized. In settings where HTA was emerging or relatively new, or where there may not be the necessary supporting institutional mechanisms, there was limited normative guidance on how to implement TISP.ConclusionsWhen institutionalizing HTA, we argue for including formal and explicit processes for the topic selection step that include: (i) a clear link to health system feasibility; (ii) process transparency to ensure legitimacy and impact; and (iii) patient and public engagement. Insights and experiences from countries with more formalized HTA systems can provide valuable lessons.
PD189 Strengthening Health Decision-Making: The Role Of Capacity Building In Health Technology Assessment In Latin America
Authors: Colaci Carla , Alfie Verónica Andrea , Marti Sebastian Garcia , Alcaraz Andrea , Augustovski Federico , Pichon-Riviere Andres 
Published: January 2025

IntroductionHealth technology assessment (HTA) applications in low- and middle-income countries face limited technical capacities. The Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS) is a key player in strengthening HTA expertise in the region and offers a variety of courses. Over 200 students from across Latin America have undertaken our introductory course on HTA and economic evaluation in the last four years.MethodsThe IECS provides a nine-week introductory online course focused on the fundamentals of HTA and economic evaluation. The course is designed for healthcare professionals (doctors, administrators, auditors, nurses, pharmacists, lawyers, etc.). The materials are available in Spanish and Portuguese on a virtual campus with asynchronous activities. Students are guided by instructors through an exchange forum. This study aimed to showcase the outcomes of this HTA course. Our analysis encompassed quantitative and qualitative data from a survey administered to nine student cohorts over the last four years. The surveys featured eight question categories covering materials, activities, quizzes, course dynamics, forum usage, tutoring, and satisfaction.ResultsA total of 234 students from Latin America were enrolled in the course. More than half came from Argentina (68%). Of the initial enrollees, 212 (91%) started the course and 192 (91%) of them passed. The satisfaction survey was completed by 168 students. Ninety-six percent of students were satisfied or very satisfied with the course overall, and the same percentage would recommend it to a colleague. Eighty-six percent felt that they could adequately follow the course, and 40 percent of students dedicating an average of two to four hours per week to the course.ConclusionsHaving accessible and feasible training opportunities in the region is important. The IECS HTA and economic course enhances HTA expertise in Latin America, as evidenced by its high rates of enrolment, completion, and satisfaction, with over 90 percent of participants recommending it. This underscores its effectiveness in reinforcing health decision-making knowledge in Latin America and contributing to the advancement of health policy.
PD191 Global Disparities In Bariatric Surgery Reimbursement: A Comparative Analysis Of 23 Countries
Authors: Tibet Birol , Sharaf Amir Mustapha , Kockaya Guvenc 
Published: January 2025

IntroductionBariatric surgery is a weight loss procedure that supports significant and long-term weight loss for individuals with severe obesity by altering the digestive system. It improves health conditions associated with obesity and can be life changing. The purpose of the study was to examine the reimbursement criteria for bariatric surgery in certain countries.MethodsA detailed review was conducted on bariatric surgery reimbursement criteria across 23 countries, analyzing official policies and guidelines from databases and government websites. The study compared national data to highlight similarities and differences in these criteria, offering insights into the varying reimbursement approaches for bariatric surgery internationally.ResultsThe research compared global reimbursement policies for bariatric surgery, revealing that Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Morocco, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, Türkiye, and the UK support reimbursement for those with a body mass index over 40 kg/m2. However, Hungary, Nigeria, Libya, and Romania do not offer such reimbursements. This discrepancy highlights the diverse healthcare approaches to severe obesity treatment across countries. The absence of financial support in some regions indicates varying health priorities and economic constraints. These findings emphasize the need for harmonized global health policies, especially for obesity, which is a significant public health issue.ConclusionsThe study highlights substantial disparities in bariatric surgery reimbursement criteria across countries. These differences, despite the proven benefits of treating severe obesity and related health issues, suggest a need for more standardized reimbursement approaches. Future research should explore the specific conditions and requirements for reimbursement and how these policies impact access to and outcomes of bariatric surgery.
PD192 Criteria For Decision-Making In Health Economic Evaluations: An Analysis Of Global Practices
Authors: Migliavaca Celina Borges , Colpani Verônica , Zago Marcolino Miriam Allein , Falavigna Maicon , Polanczyk Carisi Anne 
Published: January 2025

IntroductionEconomic criteria have become critical for health technology assessment (HTA) due to the rising costs of health technologies. The use of explicit, predefined criteria for economic evaluations enhances the transparency, objectivity, and predictability of the process. We aimed to identify which organizations worldwide integrate explicit and predefined criteria into their health economic analyses during HTA.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to identify organizations responsible for HTA processes at the national level in any country. The identification of eligible organizations was carried out by reviewing members of the EUnetHTA, HTAsiaLink, INAHTA, and RedETSA networks as well as organizations evaluated in reviews with a similar scope. For each eligible organization, information was extracted on the inclusion of economic factors during decision-making and the existence of predefined criteria for judging the results of economic evaluations.ResultsSixty-nine organizations from 56 countries were identified, of which 66 (96%) considered economic factors for HTA. Fifty-two (79%) organizations conducted cost-effectiveness analyses, 42 (64%) assessed budget impact, and one focused solely on total technology costs. Thirty-four organizations (51%) declare not having criteria for economic evaluation, whereas 14 (21%) from 12 countries had explicit criteria. There were no data found for 18 organizations (27%). Among the organizations with explicit criteria, 11 (17%) applied willingness-to-pay thresholds in cost-effectiveness evaluations and five (8%) applied criteria related to budget impact for decision-making, such as a maximum percentage of budget impact.ConclusionsAlthough most organizations consider economic factors for HTA, many do not have explicit, predefined criteria for decision-making. Among those that presented such criteria, willingness-to-pay thresholds for cost-effectiveness analyses were the most common. The findings of this study also help to identify complementary factors that can be considered to promote greater systematization and transparency in the decision-making process.
PD193 Submission Processes And Requirements For Health Technology Assessment In Australia, Canada, England, France, And Germany
Authors: Gregg Emily , Graham Charlotte , Watts Karina , Mealing Stuart 
Published: January 2025

IntroductionAs health technology assessment (HTA) bodies introduce more rigorous requirements, the submission process is becoming increasingly diverse between countries. This study assessed the HTA submission processes and requirements in Australia, Canada, England, France, and Germany. This helps identify where efficiencies can be made in the global market access strategy, such as when to submit HTA dossiers.MethodsA pragmatic review and desk-based research were conducted in November 2023. Published articles, HTA guidelines, process documents, conference abstracts, and white papers were reviewed to identify country-specific processes with implications for market access strategy. Where available, information was extracted about the general submission process and stakeholders involved (including regulatory, HTA, and pricing authorities), clinical evidence requirements, and pharmacoeconomic evidence requirements for HTA submission. Comparisons of the median time from marketing authorization to HTA decision within each country allowed the identification of efficiencies in individual HTA submission processes. The key findings and between-country differences were summarized narratively.ResultsThe review identified several areas with implications for market access strategy. The median HTA review time was shortest in Australia (125 days) and longest in England (266 days). Australia and Canada have both sequential and parallel regulatory and HTA processes. The median time taken from regulatory approval to HTA recommendation was faster with the parallel process than with the sequential process in both countries. All countries required comparative clinical evidence within the indication. The weight placed on pharmacoeconomic evidence varied between countries. In Germany, economic evaluation has yet to play a real role. Requirements for additional information after HTA submission occurred within all HTA bodies.ConclusionsHTA processes in Australia, Canada, England, France, and Germany differ from one another. This will likely affect the market access strategy for health technology developers. Similar requirements allow efficiencies in the preparation of submission documentation. Future research should investigate the impact of the European Union HTA regulation on market access and how this could affect strategic decision-making.
PD195 Variation In Decision-Making And Market Access Routes For Vaccines: Insights From Seven Countries
Authors: Gregg Emily , Watts Karina , Graham Charlotte , Mealing Stuart 
Published: January 2025

IntroductionQuick and equitable market access to vaccines is a global priority. However, market access routes for vaccines are complex and differ from those for pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, there is variation in decision-making between countries due to local requirements. This work aimed to increase awareness of the key elements of these pathways and the stakeholders involved in European Union (EU) and non-EU countries.MethodsPragmatic desk-based research was undertaken in November 2023 to explore key elements of the market access pathways for vaccines and how these differ between countries. Specifically, the countries of interest were Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the USA. Where available, information was extracted about the key stages and stakeholders involved in the decision-making pathway as well as details about any post-licensing monitoring, the value assessment framework used, vaccine pricing, and the procurement process. In addition, examples of barriers to vaccine access were extracted. The key findings and between-country differences were summarized narratively.ResultsNational Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) were key stakeholders in all countries explored and had varying roles. The evidence requirements differed among countries, such as Germany’s requirement for economic and epidemiological modeling. The Vaccine Monitoring Platform coordinates studies for post-authorization monitoring of vaccines across EU countries. However, England is not part of this network and uses a national agency instead. Vaccine procurement and pricing also differed (e.g., France uses individual reimbursement, England uses national tendering, and Canada uses regional tendering). There was variation in vaccine pricing within the USA, depending on the healthcare provider. Barriers to vaccine access were well reported.ConclusionsThese results can influence the market access strategy of vaccine developers to ensure rapid and equitable vaccine access across countries. Several between-country differences in vaccine market access routes were identified; for example, the role of NITAGs, evidence requirements, and post-licensing monitoring processes. Barriers to vaccine access have been reported in the literature, with some organizations providing recommendations to overcome these.
PD228 Standardized Open Access Reporting Of Health Technology Assessment And Stakeholder Involvement
Authors: Nunn Jack , Mason Gillian , John Denny 
Published: January 2025

IntroductionThere is currently no standardized way to share information about health technology assessment (HTA). Standardised Data on Initiatives (STARDIT) can be used to overcome current limitations in sharing data about HTA processes by providing a way to report these data. This includes which stakeholders have been involved and how, the data sources used, and any impacts or outcomes observed.MethodsSTARDIT development began in 2019, guided by participatory action research paradigms. A multidisciplinary international team of over 100 citizens, experts, and data users was involved in cocreating STARDIT. These cocreators included patients with cancer, people living with rare diseases, Indigenous Peoples from multiple countries, representatives involved in HTA processes, health researchers, environmental researchers, economists, librarians, and academic publishers. Methods used to involve people included public events, online discussions, and a public consultation process. STARDIT is free to use, and data can be submitted by anyone. Report authors can be verified to improve trust and transparency, and data can be checked for quality.ResultsSTARDIT has been used to create open access information about HTA processes that can be verified or edited by anyone at all stages of the HTA process, in multiple languages. This allows stakeholders involved in or affected by HTA processes (including patients, the public, Indigenous Peoples, and people from industry) to appraise and edit information and to self-identify the labels and terminology used to describe them. Organizations, including Australian Genomics, have recommended the use of STARDIT. Wikimedia Australia is a formal supporter and hosts data on their servers. The working beta version of STARDIT is available at ScienceForAll.World/STARDIT.ConclusionsSTARDIT improves access to standardized, verified information about HTA processes, enabling well-founded comparisons of the effectiveness of different HTA methods, including the most effective methods for involving stakeholders. Since STARDIT is open access and editable by anyone, it can support participatory ways of working and help improve the equity and quality of HTA processes worldwide.
PD232 A New Process For Patients And Caregivers To Suggest Health Technologies For Funding Consideration In Singapore
Authors: Koh Jen Hun , Pearce Fiona , Quek Shawn , Tan Ping-Tee 
Published: January 2025

IntroductionIn Singapore, health technologies were previously identified for funding consideration through horizon scanning or annual applications from clinicians, before being prioritized by the Ministry of Health advisory committees for evaluation by the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE). This poster describes a new process co-developed with local patient organizations to enable patients and caregivers to suggest health technologies for evaluation.MethodsAn application form was developed in plain language for patients and caregivers which requested the name of the health technology and its formulation, the medical condition it is used for, the perceived benefits and disadvantages, and the reasons why it should be funded. A factsheet explaining the selection process was codeveloped with patients, published online, and sent electronically with the application form in October 2023 to all local patient organizations, alongside the open application call for clinicians. Applications were accepted until January 2024 and then collated for prioritization in line with predefined selection criteria. All patients were notified of the outcome of their application.ResultsFifty applications were received from patients during the first two months of the open call compared to 75 from clinicians. Most of the patient applications (66%) requested drugs for treating asthma or respiratory conditions. Drugs requested by clinicians generally differed from those requested by patients except for 5 topics, suggesting that patients may perceive clinical need differently. Most patient applicants had used the requested drugs before and considered they were effective and convenient, but unaffordable. Health technologies were more likely to be prioritized for evaluation when their benefits were plausible and supported by evidence, and they could fill an unmet clinical need for patients.ConclusionsThe process will be updated in line with feedback to encourage continued patient participation annually. Enabling patients and caregivers to suggest health technologies for evaluation provides ACE with a better understanding of their needs, preferences, lived experiences, and expectations, and ensures that subsequent funding recommendations informed by ACE’s evaluations address therapeutic gaps and improve treatment affordability and patient outcomes.