Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:20:11.556Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Technology Assessment: Early Results of the Quebec Experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Robert Jacob  and
Renaldo N. Battista
Robert Jacob
Affiliation:
Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services
Renaldo N. Battista
Affiliation:
McGill University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Quebec Council on Health Care Technology Assessment was created in 1988. Its functions are to promote, support, and produce health care technology assessments and to advise the Minister of Health. An independent review of the council’s first four years of operation was commissioned. The evaluation team concluded that the council showed very good results in terms of the scope, quality, and impact of its production and succeeded in establishing its credibility. However, the evaluation team suggested that the council adopt a more active strategy toward the promotion and diffusion of its reports. Some critical determinants of success of the Quebec experience in technology assessment are discussed.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , Fall 1993 , pp. 564 - 572
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Banta, H. D., Behney, C. J., & Williams, J. S.Toward rational technology in medicine: Considerations for health policy. New York:Springer Publishing Company, 1981.Google Scholar
2.Banta, H. D., & Kemp, K. B.The management of health care technology in nine countries. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 1982.Google ScholarPubMed
Commission d'enquête sur les services de santé et les services sociaux. Rapport de la Commission d'enquête sur les services de santé et les services sociaux. Québec: Les publications du Québec, 1988.Google Scholar
4. Conseil d’évaluation des technologies de la santé. Distribution des laboratoires de cathétérisme cardiaque au Québec. Montréal: CETS, 1989. (English version available)Google Scholar
5. Conseil d’évaluation des technologies de la santé. Comparaison des opacifiants à basse osmolarité et à haute osmolarité. Montréal: CETS, 1990. (English version available)Google Scholar
6. Conseil d’évaluation des technologies de la santé. L’accès aux opacifiants à basse osmolarité: Considérations juridiques et morales. Montréal: CETS, 1990. (English version available)Google Scholar
7.Contandriopoulos, A.-P.Cost containment through payment mechanism: The Quebec experience. Journal of Public Health Policy, 1986, 7, 211–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Corporation professionnelle des médecins du Québec. Guide d’utilisation des substances de faible osmolarité comme agents de contraste. Montréal: CPMQ, 1991.Google Scholar
9. Evaluation du Conseil d’évaluation des technologies de la santé. Rapport de Price Water house préparé à la demande du Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux. Québec: MSSS, Direction de l’évaluation, 1991.Google Scholar
10.Institute of Medicine, Committee for Evaluating Medical Technologies in Clinical Use. Assessing medical technologies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1985.Google Scholar
11.Institute of Medicine, Council on Health Care Technology. Medical technology assessment directory. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988.Google Scholar
12.Katayama, H., et al. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. Radiology, 1990, 175, 621–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Stocking, B. (ed.). Expensive health technologies: Regulatory and administrative mechanisms in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
14.Stoddard, G., & Feeny, D. Policy options for health care technology. In Fenny, D., Guyatt, G., & Tugwell, P. (eds.), Health care technology: Effectiveness, efficiency and publicpolicy. Montreal: The Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1986.Google Scholar
15.WHO/LINFO Project. The WHO/LINFO directory: A directory of institutions dedicated to health technology assessment. Linkoping University, 1987.Google Scholar