IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i16p8846-d619490.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health Technology Assessment Development in Vietnam: A Qualitative Study of Current Progress, Barriers, Facilitators, and Future Strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Hwa-Young Lee

    (Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA
    Institute of Convergence Science (ICONS), Convergence Science Academy, Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Korea
    These authors contributed equally.)

  • Thuy Thi-Thu Nguyen

    (Department of Organization and Economics of Pharmacy, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam
    These authors contributed equally.)

  • Saeun Park

    (Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN 55455, USA)

  • Van Minh Hoang

    (Hanoi University of Public Health, Hanoi 1000, Vietnam)

  • Woong-Han Kim

    (Program in Global Surgery and Implementation Science, JW LEE Center for Global Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03087, Korea
    Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Korea)

Abstract

Introduction: To make more efficient use of limited resources, Vietnam incorporated health technology assessment (HTA) into the decision-making process for the health insurance benefit package in 2014. We evaluated progress in HTA institutionalization in Vietnam based on the theoretical framework developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, identified negative and conducive factors for HTA development, and finally suggested policy recommendations that fit the Vietnamese context. Methods: Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted between December 2017 and March and April 2018 with a purposive sample of 24 stakeholders involved in decision-making for health insurance reimbursement. We employed thematic analysis to examine themes within the data. Results: Despite a variety of activities (e.g., training and advising/mentoring) and a substantial level of output (e.g., policy statements, focal points assigned, and case studies/demonstration projects), Vietnam has not yet reached the policy decision stage based on HTA with scientific integrity and active stakeholder participation. Most respondents, except some clinicians, supported the use of HTA. The lack of capacity of human resources in the government sector and academia, the limited data infrastructure, the absence of guidelines, the government’s interest in immediate budget-saving, and public resistance were identified as barriers to the advancement of HTA. Conclusions: A structured data repository, guidelines based on the Vietnamese context for both policy decision-making at the central level and daily clinical decision-making at the micro-level, and integration of a participatory process into HTA are suggested as priorities for HTA institutionalization in Vietnam.

Suggested Citation

  • Hwa-Young Lee & Thuy Thi-Thu Nguyen & Saeun Park & Van Minh Hoang & Woong-Han Kim, 2021. "Health Technology Assessment Development in Vietnam: A Qualitative Study of Current Progress, Barriers, Facilitators, and Future Strategies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-13, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8846-:d:619490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8846/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8846/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abelson, Julia & Giacomini, Mita & Lehoux, Pascale & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2007. "Bringing `the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 37-50, June.
    2. Ubel, Peter A. & Jepson, Christopher & Baron, Jonathan & Hershey, John C. & Asch, David A., 2003. "The influence of cost-effectiveness information on physicians' cancer screening recommendations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1727-1736, April.
    3. Drummond, Michael & Cooke, Jonathan & Walley, Tom, 1997. "Economic evaluation under managed competition: Evidence from the U.K," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 583-595, August.
    4. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2008. "A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(2-3), pages 129-141, May.
    5. Addo, Rebecca & Hall, Jane & Haas, Marion & Goodall, Stephen, 2020. "The knowledge and attitude of Ghanaian decision-makers and researchers towards health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    6. Fischer, Katharina Elisabeth, 2012. "A systematic review of coverage decision-making on health technologies—Evidence from the real world," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 218-230.
    7. Drummond, Michael F., 1987. "Economic evaluation and the rational diffusion and use of health technology," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 309-324, June.
    8. Duthie, Tessa & Trueman, Paul & Chancellor, Jeremy & Diez, Lara, 1999. "Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom--Phase II: Is health economics `for good or evil'?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 143-157, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daudi Katopola & Fredirick Mashili & Marie Hasselberg, 2022. "Pedestrians’ Perception of Pedestrian Bridges—A Qualitative Study in Dar es Salaam," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-12, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. W. Dominika Wranik & Liesl Gambold & Natasha Hanson & Adrian Levy, 2017. "The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: Can centralization improve the use of economic evaluation?," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 232-260, April.
    2. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2008. "A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(2-3), pages 129-141, May.
    3. Hoffmann, Christiane AU -, 2000. "The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making.: A European survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 179-192, July.
    4. Legood, Rosa & Wolstenholme, Jane & Gray, Alastair, 2009. "From cost-effectiveness information to decision-making on liquid-based cytology: Mind the gap," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 193-200, February.
    5. Elias Asfaw Zegeye & Josue Mbonigaba & Sylvia Blanche Kaye & Thomas Wilkinson, 2017. "Economic Evaluation in Ethiopian Healthcare Sector Decision Making: Perception, Practice and Barriers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 33-43, February.
    6. Fischer, Katharina E. & Rogowski, Wolf H. & Leidl, Reiner & Stollenwerk, Björn, 2013. "Transparency vs. closed-door policy: Do process characteristics have an impact on the outcomes of coverage decisions? A statistical analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 187-196.
    7. Torbica, Aleksandra & Fattore, Giovanni, 2010. "Understanding the impact of economic evidence on clinical decision making: A discrete choice experiment in cardiology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1536-1543, May.
    8. Williams, Iestyn & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: A conceptual framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 135-143, January.
    9. Hodgetts, Katherine & Elshaug, Adam G. & Hiller, Janet E., 2012. "What counts and how to count it: Physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2191-2199.
    10. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Julie Ratcliffe & Kate Halton & Nicholas Graves, 2015. "Bridging the Gap: Exploring the Barriers to Using Economic Evidence in Healthcare Decision Making and Strategies for Improving Uptake," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 303-309, June.
    11. Williams, Iestyn P. & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England: Findings from research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(10), pages 2116-2129, November.
    12. Stirling Bryan & Iestyn Williams & Shirley McIver, 2007. "Seeing the NICE side of cost‐effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 179-193, February.
    13. Gijs Wetering & Willem Woertman & Eddy Adang, 2012. "Time to incorporate time in cost-effectiveness analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(3), pages 223-226, June.
    14. Jabbar, Amina M. & Abelson, Julia, 2011. "Development of a framework for effective community engagement in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 59-69, June.
    15. Barbara Bini & Milena Vainieri & Sabina Nuti, 2015. "Definizione delle priorit? di intervento in sanit?: approcci socio-tecnici a confronto," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(93), pages 49-73.
    16. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Pauline Zardo & Nicholas Graves, 2019. "Applying an Implementation Framework to the Use of Evidence from Economic Evaluations in Making Healthcare Decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 533-543, August.
    17. Miller, Fiona A. & Lehoux, Pascale & Rac, Valeria E. & Bytautas, Jessica P. & Krahn, Murray & Peacock, Stuart, 2020. "Modes of coordination for health technology adoption: Health Technology Assessment agencies and Group Procurement Organizations in a polycentric regulatory regime," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    18. Anna Nicolet & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Karin M Vermeulen & Paul F M Krabbe, 2020. "Value judgment of new medical treatments: Societal and patient perspectives to inform priority setting in The Netherlands," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-18, July.
    19. Katharina Fischer & Reiner Leidl, 2014. "Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora’s box?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 899-906, December.
    20. Kleinhout-Vliek, Tineke & de Bont, Antoinette & Boer, Bert, 2017. "The bare necessities? A realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 731-744.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8846-:d:619490. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.