| Autor | Pereira, Viviane Cássia | |
| Autor | Barreto, Jorge Otávio Maia | |
| Autor | Neves, Francisco Assis da Rocha | |
| Data de acesso | 2020-06-10T13:08:50Z | |
| Data de disponibilização | 2020-06-10T13:08:50Z | |
| Data do publicação | 2019 | |
| Citação | PEREIRA, Viviane Cássia et al. Health technology reassessment in the Brazilian public health system: analysis of the current status. PLoS One, [San Franscico], v. 14, n. 7, p. 1-19, Jul. 2019. | pt_BR |
| ISSN | 1932-6203 | pt_BR |
| URI | https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/handle/icict/41600 | |
| Idioma | eng | pt_BR |
| Editor | Public Library of Science | pt_BR |
| Direito Autoral | open access | pt_BR |
| MeSH | Biomedical Technology | pt_BR |
| MeSH | Decision Making | pt_BR |
| MeSH | Qualitative Research | pt_BR |
| MeSH | Retrospective Studies | pt_BR |
| MeSH | Technology Assessment, Biomedical | pt_BR |
| MeSH | Public Health | pt_BR |
| MeSH | Brazil | pt_BR |
| Título | Health technology reassessment in the Brazilian public health system: analysis of the current status | pt_BR |
| Tipo do documento | Article | pt_BR |
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0220131 | |
| Resumo em Inglês | Background: The reassessment of technologies and services offered by healthcare systems is recent initiative and still without a widely adopted and evaluated method. To a better understanding of this process in Brazil, we have described the health technology reassessment (HTR) performed by the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation (Conitec) into Brazilian public health system (SUS). Methods: A documental, exploratory, descriptive, retrospective study with qualitative-quantitative approach regarding the HTR performed by Conitec from January 2012 to November 2017. Results: After applying the criteria of inclusion and exclusion, we selected 47 technologies for this study. The vast majority of the demands (41 demands) came from the public sector, and only six from the private sector. Most of the requests referred to the exclusion of specific indication; followed by extension of use, withdraw of the technology from SUS, maintenance, and restriction of use. The dimensions of analysis found in the recommendation reports were scientific evidence on efficacy, effectiveness and safety, disease-related issues, issues related to the use of technology, costs, and social participation. However, these dimensions were not included in all analysis, and a standardized structure of the reports has not been observed. The most relevant decision factors considered for decision-making were efficacy, safety and use of the technology. Conclusion: During a six-year period of Conitec actuation, we could find some reassessments of technologies that are available in SUS. We observed that these activities had enabled progress, however, they are still not yet structured, with gaps in the selection process, and the assessment since no methodology and criteria for proper conduct were established. | pt_BR |
| Afiliação | Universidade de Brasília. Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brasil / Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Fiocruz Brasília. Brasília, DF, Brasil. | pt_BR |
| Afiliação | Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Fiocruz Brasília. Brasília, DF, Brasil. | pt_BR |
| Afiliação | Universidade de Brasília. Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brasil. | pt_BR |
| Palavras-chave em inglês | Health technology | pt_BR |
| Palavras-chave em inglês | Brazilian public health | pt_BR |
| Palavras-chave em inglês | Technology assessment, biomedical | pt_BR |
| Palavras-chave em inglês | Public health | pt_BR |
| DeCS | Tecnologia Biomédica | pt_BR |
| DeCS | Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica | pt_BR |
| DeCS | Sistema Público de Saúde | pt_BR |
| DeCS | Saúde Pública | pt_BR |
| xmlui.metadata.dc.subject.ods | 03 Saúde e Bem-Estar | |
