TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Tuğba YILDIZ (Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu)
Sosyal Güvence
7 4
Yıl: 2018 Cilt: 0 Sayı: 13 Sayfa Aralığı: 116 - 146 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.21441/sguz.2018.62 İndeks Tarihi: 05-09-2019

TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz:
Günümüzde sağlık harcamaları hızla artıyorken, karar vericiler, sağlığa erişim hakkı, sağlıkta eşitlik ve seçim hakkı gibi temel ilkeleri gözeterek gelişen sağlık teknolojilerinin finansmanı ve bütçe kısıtı arasında denge kurmaya çalışmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda sağlık teknolojileri değerlendirmeleri (STD) birçok ülke için önemli bir sağlık politikası aracı haline gelmiştir. STD yöntemleri ve uygulamaları, birçok ülkede, ilaçlarla ilgili kararların verilmesinde temel bir politika aracı haline gelmiştir. Tıbbi cihazlar için de STD uygulamaları, ülkeler arasında hızla yayılıyor olmakla birlikte, henüz ilaçlarda olduğu kadar yaygın bir uygulama alanına sahip değildir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, ilaçlar için uygulanan STD yöntemlerinin birebir tıbbi cihazlara uygulanamayacağına dikkat çekmek, tıbbi cihazlara ilişkin STD süreçlerinde tıbbi cihazlara özgü özelliklerin göz önünde bulundurulmasının önemini ortaya koymak ve tıbbi cihazların kendisine has özelliklerinin göz önünde bulundurulduğu STD süreçleri konusunda önerilerde bulunmaktır. Çalışmada, genel olarak uygulanagelen STD yöntemlerinin tıbbi cihazlar için de uygulanabilir olduğu ancak tıbbi cihazları ilaçlardan ayıran farkların göz önünde bulundurularak STD süreçlerinin zenginleştirilebileceği sonucuna varılmıştır.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Tıbbi İnformatik Tıbbi Etik

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN MEDICAL DEVICES

Öz:
As the health expenditures are rapidly increasing nowadays, decision makers are trying to realize a balance between the right to access health, funding of health technologies that are developing by taking equality in health and claim to choose into account and restrictions in budget. For this reason, health technology assessment (HTA) has become an important health policy tool for many countries. HTA methods and applications have become a fundamental policy tool for decisions related to drug in many countries. Although HTA applications for medical devices are rapidly spreading among countries, they are still not widely used as drugs. The purpose of this study is draw attention that HTA methods which are applied for medicines cannot be applied to medical devices directly, to emphasize the importance of taking into account the characteristics of medical devices in HTA processes related to medical devices and to make recommendations on HTA processes considering their unique characteristics. The study concluded that HTA methods generally applicable to medical devices are applicable but that HTA processes can be enriched by taking into account the differences that distinguish medical devices from medicines
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Tıbbi İnformatik Tıbbi Etik
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Borgonovi, E., Busse, R., & Kanavos, P. (2008). Financing Medical Devices in Eu-rope: Current Trends and Perspectives for Research” . Eurohealth, 14(3), 1-3.
  • Busse, R., Orvain, J., Velasco, M., Perleth, M., Drummond, M., Gurtner, F., . . . Wild, C. (2002). Best Practice In Undertaking And Reporting Health Technology Assessments. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 18(2), 361-422.
  • Campbell, G. (2008). Statistics in the world of medical devices: the contrast with pharmaceuticals. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 1(18), 4-19.
  • Chalkidou, K., Lord, J., Fischer, A., & Littlejohns, P. (2008). Evidence-Based Deci-sion Making: When Should We Wait For More Information? Health Affairs, 6(27), 1642-1653.
  • Cook, J., Ramsay, C., & Fayers, P. (2004). Statistical evaluation of learning curve effects in surgical trials. Clin Trials, 1(5), 421-427.
  • Council Directive 93/42/EC of 14 June 1993 Concerning Medical Devices. (2016, Mayıs 20). europa.eu: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=CONSLEG: 1993L0042:20071011:en:PDF adresinden ulaşılmıştır.
  • Coyle, D., & Lee, K.M. (2002). Evidence-based economic evaluation: how the use of different data sources can impact results, Evidence-based health economics: from effectiveness to efficiency in systematic review. London: BMJ Publishing Group.
  • Drummond, M., Griffiin, A., & Tarricone, R. (2009). Economic Evaluation for Devi-ces and Drugs-Same or Different? Value in Health, 12(4), 402-404.
  • Eldessoukı, R. (2011). Therapeutic and Diognastic Device Regulations. Therapeutic and Diognastic Device Outcomes Research (s. 41-43). USA: ISPOR.
  • EUnetHTA. (2008). EUnetHTA Work Package & Handbook on Health Technology Assessment Capacity Building. Barcelona: EUnetHTA.
  • EUnetHTA. (2015). Therapeutic medical devices guideline Austria. Austria: EU-netHTA.
  • European Commission. (2012). Proposal por a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Relating to the Transparency of Measures Regulating The Prices of Medicinal Products For Human Use and Their Inclusion in the Scope of the Nati-onal Health Insurance Systems. Sweeden: European Commission.
  • FDA. (2016, Mayıs 20). Medical Device. FDA Web Sitesi: http://www.fda.gov/ medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/howtomarketyourdevice/ adresinden ulaşılmıştır.
  • Fraser, A. G., Daubert, J. C., Werf, F., Estes, M., Smith Jr, S. C., Krucoff, M. W., Komajda, M. (2011). Clinical Evaluation Of Cardiovascular Devices: Principles, Problems, and Proposals For European Regulatory Reform Report of a Policy Con-ference of the European Society of of Cardiology. European Heart Journal, 13(32), 1673-1686.
  • GHTF. (2012). Definition of the Terms ‘Medical Device’ and ‘In Vitro Diagnos-tic (IVD). The Global Harmonization Task Force. Mayıs 20, 2016 tarihinde http:// www.imdrf.org/docs/ghtf/final/sg1/technical-docs/ghtf-sg1-n071-2012-definition-of-terms-120516.pdf adresinden ulaşılmıştır.
  • Goodman, C.S. (2004). HTA 101 Introduction to Health Technology Assessment. Virginia: The Lewin Group.
  • Henschke, C., Perleth, M., Busse, R., & Panteli, D. (2015). Taxonomy of Medical Devices in the Logic of Health Technology Assessment. International Journal of Te-chnology Assessment in Healthcare, 31(5), 324-330.
  • Higgins, J., & Green, S. (2016, Mayıs 20). Cochrane handbook for systematic re-views of interventions version 5.1.0 2011. Cochrane Web sitesi: http://handbook. cochrane.org/ adresinden ulaşılmıştır.
  • INAHTA. (2006). Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Glossary. Stockholm: INAHTA.
  • KCE. (2015). Towards a guided and phased introduction of high-risk medical devi-ces in Belgium. Brussels: KCE.
  • Konstam, M.A., Pina, I., Lindenfeld, J., & Packer, M. (2003). A Device Is Not a Drug. Journal of Cardiac Failure, 3(9), 155-157.
  • Kristensen, F.B., & Sigmund, H. (2007). Health Technology Assessment Handbook. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment.
  • Lassen, K., Hoye, A., & Myrmel, T. (2012). Randomised Trials in Surgery: The Bur-den of Evidence. Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials, 3(7), 244-248.
  • MEDDEV. (2010). Medical Devices: Guidance Document - Classification of Medi-cal Devices. MEDDEV.
  • Murphy, A.M. (2013). Economic evaluations for health. Economic evaluations for health technologies with an evolving evidence base: a case study of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. PhD thesistez. University of Glasgow.
  • National Authority for Health. (2013). Methodological Choices for the Clinical De-velopment of Medical Devices. Saint-Denis La Plaine : National Authority for He-alth.
  • National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. (2015). Comparison of market authorization systems of medical devices in USA and Europe. Bilthoven: Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.
  • NICE. (2008). National Instutitute for Health and Care Excellence, Approval for Medical Devices Research Version 2. London: NICE.
  • NICE. (2011). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Medical Tech-nologies Evaluation Programme methods guide. London: NICE.
  • Parquin, F., & Audry, A. (2012). Clinical evaluation of medical devices: main cons-traints and specificities. Therapie, 4(67), 311-318.
  • Rochaix, L., & Xerri, B. (2009). National Authority for Health: France. The Com-monwealth Fund, 48(1295), 1-10.
  • Sculpher, M., Drummond, M., & Buxton, M. (1997). The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 1(2), 26-30.
  • Siebert, M., Clauss, L. C., Carlisie, M., Casteels, B., Jong, P., Kreuezer, M., . . . Lang, A. W. (2002). Health technology assessment for medical devices in Europe. What must be considered? International Journal Technologies Assess Health Care, 3(18), 733-740.
  • Simoens, S. (2009). Which Barriers Prevent the Efficient Use of Resources in Medi-cal Device Sectors. Health Policy, 7(4), 209-217.
  • Sorenson, C., Tarricone, R., Siebert, M., & Drummond, M. (2011). Applying health economics for policy decision making: do devices differ from drugs? Europace, 54-58.
  • Taylor, R. S., Cynthia , P., & Iglesias. (2009). Assesing the Clinical and Cost-Effec-tiveness of Medical Devices and Drugs: Are They Different? Value in Health, 12(4), 404-406.
  • WHO. (2008). Ensuring Value for Money in Helth Care: The Role of Health Tech- nology Assessment in European Union. UK: WHO.
  • WHO. (2010a). Medical Devices: Managing the Mismatch an Outcome of the Prio- rity Medical Devices Project. France: who.
  • WHO. (2010b). World Health Organization, Clinical Evidence for Medical Devices: Regulatory Processes Focussing on Europe and the United States of America. A: WHO.
APA Yıldız T (2018). TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. , 116 - 146. 10.21441/sguz.2018.62
Chicago Yıldız Tugba TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. (2018): 116 - 146. 10.21441/sguz.2018.62
MLA Yıldız Tugba TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. , 2018, ss.116 - 146. 10.21441/sguz.2018.62
AMA Yıldız T TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. . 2018; 116 - 146. 10.21441/sguz.2018.62
Vancouver Yıldız T TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. . 2018; 116 - 146. 10.21441/sguz.2018.62
IEEE Yıldız T "TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ." , ss.116 - 146, 2018. 10.21441/sguz.2018.62
ISNAD Yıldız, Tugba. "TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ". (2018), 116-146. https://doi.org/10.21441/sguz.2018.62
APA Yıldız T (2018). TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Sosyal Güvence, 0(13), 116 - 146. 10.21441/sguz.2018.62
Chicago Yıldız Tugba TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Sosyal Güvence 0, no.13 (2018): 116 - 146. 10.21441/sguz.2018.62
MLA Yıldız Tugba TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Sosyal Güvence, vol.0, no.13, 2018, ss.116 - 146. 10.21441/sguz.2018.62
AMA Yıldız T TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Sosyal Güvence. 2018; 0(13): 116 - 146. 10.21441/sguz.2018.62
Vancouver Yıldız T TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ. Sosyal Güvence. 2018; 0(13): 116 - 146. 10.21441/sguz.2018.62
IEEE Yıldız T "TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ." Sosyal Güvence, 0, ss.116 - 146, 2018. 10.21441/sguz.2018.62
ISNAD Yıldız, Tugba. "TIBBİ CİHAZLARDA SAĞLIK TEKNOLOJİLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ". Sosyal Güvence 13 (2018), 116-146. https://doi.org/10.21441/sguz.2018.62
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 8:38

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları