↓ Skip to main content

Similarities and differences between stakeholders’ opinions on using Health Technology Assessment (HTA) information across five European countries: results from the EQUIPT survey

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Similarities and differences between stakeholders’ opinions on using Health Technology Assessment (HTA) information across five European countries: results from the EQUIPT survey
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-016-0110-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zoltan Vokó, Kei Long Cheung, Judit Józwiak-Hagymásy, Silke Wolfenstetter, Teresa Jones, Celia Muñoz, Silvia M.A.A. Evers, Mickaël Hiligsmann, Hein de Vries, Subhash Pokhrel, On behalf of the EQUIPT Study Group

Abstract

The European-study on Quantifying Utility of Investment in Protection from Tobacco (EQUIPT) project aimed to study transferability of economic evidence by co-creating the Tobacco Return On Investment (ROI) tool, previously developed in the United Kingdom, for four sample countries (Germany, Hungary, Spain and the Netherlands). The EQUIPT tool provides policymakers and stakeholders with customized information about the economic and wider returns on the investment in evidence-based tobacco control, including smoking cessation interventions. A Stakeholder Interview Survey was developed to engage with the stakeholders in early phases of the development and country adaptation of the ROI tool. The survey assessed stakeholders' information needs, awareness about underlying principles used in economic analyses, opinion about the importance, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tobacco control interventions, and willingness to use a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) tool such as the ROI tool. A cross sectional study using a mixed method approach was conducted among participating stakeholders in the sample countries and the United Kingdom. The individual questionnaire contained open-ended questions as well as single choice and 7- or 3-point Likert-scale questions. The results corresponding to the priority and needs assessment and to the awareness of stakeholders about underlying principles used in economic analysis are analysed by country and stakeholder categories. Stakeholders considered it important that the decisions on the investments in tobacco control interventions should be supported by scientific evidence, including prevalence of smoking, cost of smoking, quality of life, mortality due to smoking, and effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and budget impact of smoking cessation interventions. The proposed ROI tool was required to provide this granularity of information. The majority of the stakeholders were aware of the general principles of economic analyses used in decision making contexts but they did not appear to have in-depth knowledge about specific technical details. Generally, stakeholders' answers showed larger variability by country than by stakeholder category. Stakeholders across different European countries viewed the use of HTA evidence to be an important factor in their decision-making process. Further, they considered themselves to be capable of interpreting the results from a ROI tool and were highly motivated to use it.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 97 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Student > Master 13 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 29 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 16%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 10%
Social Sciences 9 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 30 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 June 2016.
All research outputs
#7,061,613
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#792
of 1,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,448
of 339,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#17
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.