WU Yanan 1,2,3 , WANG Hanbin 1,2,3 , E Fenfen 4 , XU Meng 5 , ZHOU Liying 6 , SHANG Xue 7 , LIANG Shanshan 1,2,3 , WANG Ziyi 1,2,3 , DENG Xinxin 1,2,3 , YANG Kehu 1,2,3 , LI Xiuxia 1,2,3
  • 1. Health Technology Assessment Center /Evidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 2. Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 3. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 4. Qinghai University Affiliated Hospital, Xining 810001, P. R. China;
  • 5. The Second Affiliated Hospital of Air Force Medical University, Xi’an 710038, P. R. China;
  • 6. School of Public Health, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310016, P. R. China;
  • 7. College of Public Administration, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, P. R. China;
YANG Kehu, Email: kehuyangebm2006@126.com; LI Xiuxia, Email: lixiuxia@lzu.edu.cn
Health technology assessment; Rapid health technology assessment; Reporting standard; Methodology
10.7507/1672-2531.202406179
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objective To construct rapid health technology assessment (RHTA) reporting norms, with a view to providing methodological references for RHTA research and reporting. Methods Based on the preliminary pool of entries constructed by the literature research results, and taking into account the characteristics of RHTA, a Delphi expert correspondence questionnaire was designed, and 25 experts in the field of HTA were selected to conduct multiple rounds of expert correspondence. By calculating the expert authority coefficient and opinion coordination coefficient, combined with the average value of the entry score, coefficient of variation and full score ratio, the entries were selected to form the list of RHTA report specifications. Results The positive coefficient of experts in both rounds of investigation was 100%, the expert authority coefficient in the first round was 0.858, and the expert authority coefficient in the second round was 0.838. The Kendall coordination coefficient in the first round was 0.169, and in the second round it was 0.081. According to the correspondence of 2 rounds of investigation, the final formation included 8 aspects, 26 first-level entries and 18 second-level entries in the list of RHTA report specifications. Conclusion This study constructed the RHTA report specification, which is both scientific and operable, providing a reference for RHTA report writing.

Copyright © the editorial department of Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine of West China Medical Publisher. All rights reserved