INCORPORATING HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL OUTCOMES IN RESEARCH PROJECT FUNDING DECISIONS: USEFULNESS OF AN ADAPTED EARLY HTA INSTRUMENT
Author(s)
Dagmar Stoop, MSc1, Ilse Mulder, MSc2, Marjan de Vries, MSc, PhD3, Evelien van Leeuwen, MSc, PhD4, Eva Knies, MSc, PhD4, Kees van Laarhoven, MSc, PhD1, Janneke Grutters, MSc, PhD5.
1Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc), Nijmgen, Netherlands, 2Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc), Nijmegen, Netherlands, 3Radboudumc, Nijmgen, Netherlands, 4School of Governance, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands, 5Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
1Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc), Nijmgen, Netherlands, 2Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc), Nijmegen, Netherlands, 3Radboudumc, Nijmgen, Netherlands, 4School of Governance, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands, 5Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
OBJECTIVES: Growing healthcare workforce shortages increase the need to assess how innovations affect healthcare professionals, such as their well-being and efficiency. However, research funders traditionally prioritize patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness, while healthcare professional outcomes are generally overlooked. This study aims to explore the usefulness of an early health technology assessment (HTA) instrument that incorporates the impact on healthcare professionals as an assessment and prioritization tool in a structured selection process.
METHODS: We adapted an existing early HTA instrument to explicitly capture the expected impact on healthcare professionals. The instrument was used in a selection process for interventions aimed at improving well-being and efficiency. Twenty-eight shortlisted project teams completed the instrument as part of their application. Each application was independently scored by five different experts and subsequently discussed in a consensus meeting. Seven projects were selected based on the final scores and insights from the consensus meeting. We performed semi-structured interviews with project leaders (n=10; 7 selected, 3 non-selected) and experts (n=6). Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed, focusing on the instrument’s usability, clarity and perceived value. The instrument will be refined based on the interview results.
RESULTS: Data collection is complete and analyses are ongoing. Preliminary review of the data suggests that the HTA instrument is generally perceived as useful by both project leaders and experts. At the same time, several suggestions of improvement of the instrument were mentioned. These insights are being further explored in the ongoing thematic analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest that, within this selection process, the adapted early HTA instrument was a useful and feasible tool for supporting funding decisions for healthcare innovations. It also shows potential for broader application in other funding and prioritization processes, supporting the integration of healthcare professional outcomes into decision-making alongside patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
METHODS: We adapted an existing early HTA instrument to explicitly capture the expected impact on healthcare professionals. The instrument was used in a selection process for interventions aimed at improving well-being and efficiency. Twenty-eight shortlisted project teams completed the instrument as part of their application. Each application was independently scored by five different experts and subsequently discussed in a consensus meeting. Seven projects were selected based on the final scores and insights from the consensus meeting. We performed semi-structured interviews with project leaders (n=10; 7 selected, 3 non-selected) and experts (n=6). Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed, focusing on the instrument’s usability, clarity and perceived value. The instrument will be refined based on the interview results.
RESULTS: Data collection is complete and analyses are ongoing. Preliminary review of the data suggests that the HTA instrument is generally perceived as useful by both project leaders and experts. At the same time, several suggestions of improvement of the instrument were mentioned. These insights are being further explored in the ongoing thematic analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary findings suggest that, within this selection process, the adapted early HTA instrument was a useful and feasible tool for supporting funding decisions for healthcare innovations. It also shows potential for broader application in other funding and prioritization processes, supporting the integration of healthcare professional outcomes into decision-making alongside patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
HTA221
Topic
Health Policy & Regulatory, Health Technology Assessment
Topic Subcategory
Decision & Deliberative Processes
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas