Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Berit Mørland

Publications and source records attributed to Berit Mørland.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Joint project of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment--Part 2: Managing the diffusion of positron emission tomography with health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Since 1997, members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) have collaborated on a Joint Project to track the diffusion, evaluation, and clinical policy of positron emission tomography (PET). Part 2 of this updated Joint Project report summarizes HTA-based strategies for directing the clinical use of PET and a discussion on the value of HTA in managing the diffusion of high cost diagnostic technologies, which were presented at an INAHTA-sponsored workshop at the Health Technology Assessment International Annual Meeting in 2004 on strategies for managing high cost diagnostic technologies. METHODS: A summary of the workshop proceedings is presented. CONCLUSIONS: Sharing assessment work, universal agreement in assessment conclusions, stakeholder input, and modeling techniques help manage the uncertainty in the evidence base while targeting clinical use of PET toward the most promising indications. Emphasis on HTA findings, linkage between financing of clinical PET and outcome evaluation, and targeted dissemination of scientific findings empower providers to reduce unnecessary utilization and contain costs within a quality improvement framework. Above all, a trustworthy source of HTA information and a process that is conducive to using scientific evidence as the basis for decision making are essential for managing the diffusion of complex and costly diagnostic technologies in patient care.

Capital Financing↗
PubMed2005

Six years' experience with interdisciplinary review teams in health technology assessment in Norway.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of interdisciplinary review teams that have been the main and central work form in making health technology assessments at the Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment. METHODS: Evaluation questionnaires were sent to all 112 participants in the 17 review teams for the period of January 1998 to June 2003 after completion of the literature assessment. Questions were on the theme/mandate of the assessments, composition of the review team, organization of the work, the working method, and update of the report. RESULTS: The teams ranged from 4 to 14 persons regarded as opinion leaders in their field. The project periods lasted from 4 to 33 months. In all, fifty-five participants gave fifty-eight responses (51.8 percent) to the questionnaires. A total of 83 percent thought the theme was well argued, and 62 percent thought the mandate for the assessments was sufficiently clear. Approximately 80 percent were positive to the composition of the review team. In all, 22 percent expressed that the work method was too extensive and 43 percent wanted more tuition. General comments were that the working method gave competence in assessing medical literature, relevant professional training, and tuition in a working method that ensured the legitimacy of their work. CONCLUSIONS: The review team participants were satisfied with most aspects of the work. The Norwegian Centre for Health Technology Assessment will continue using interdisciplinary review teams in making health technology assessments.

Humans↗