HTA programme remit

The HTA programme supports research that is immediately useful to clinical practice and policy/decision makers. HTA research is undertaken when there is evidence to show the technology is efficacious but there is uncertainty around its clinical and cost effectiveness in a real life NHS setting in comparison to the current best alternative(s). There may also be uncertainty around its place in the existing care pathway.

The HTA programme commissions and funds research via four different routes:

  • Standard calls - commissions research proposals that address specific topics or themes;
  • HTA Clinical evaluation and trials calls - invites research proposals for evaluation studies and clinical trials on topics proposed directly by researchers;
  • Themed calls - one-off invitations for proposals to fund research in areas where a particular need has been identified;
  • Technology Assessment Report (TAR) contract - specialist assessment centres are contracted by the Department of Health to undertake technology assessment reports on behalf of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and other policy customers.

View the NETSCC glossary for more detailed definitions.

Characteristics of HTA research

Evaluates Effectiveness of a medical intervention in a real life NHS setting
Types of research Primary (clinical research) ,secondary (evidence synthesis, e.g. a systematic review or meta analysis), usually pragmatic research with routine care
Stages of research The main focus of HTA research is long-term effectiveness and the impact on patients' quality of life as well as cost-effectiveness. These studies would evaluate effectiveness in a real-world NHS setting
Design Often a pragmatic randomised controlled trial although other study designs may be used for instance in the evaluation of diagnostic tests
Participant eligibility criteria Wide and representative of the UK population and reflects the mix of patients likely to be seen in normal clinical practice
No. of participants & centres Generally large – adequate to assess minimally important differences from a patient perspective; usually multi-centre generating results that are generalisable to the NHS
Technology* Fully defined and developed technology
Comparator The best active alternative or usual care. Placebos may be used in conjunction with best treatment to blind trial participants
Outcomes Clinically important outcomes that matter to patients and that measure health gain
Follow up Sufficient to ensure that a wider range of effects are identified other than those which are evident immediately after treatment
Health economic component included? Usually cost-utility or cost-effectiveness
Can a mechanistic evaluation be included as part of the main study? Not usually, it would only be a secondary consideration to assessing cost-effectiveness
Diagnostic evaluations Unlikely to support evaluations which seek to determine the normal range of values for a diagnostic test through observational studies in healthy people. Likely to support the evaluation of cost-effectiveness in routine clinical practice

*By “technology” we mean any method used to promote health, prevent and treat disease and improve rehabilitation or long-term care. “Technologies” in this context are not confined to new drugs but include procedures, devices, tests, settings of care, screening programmes and any intervention used in the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of disease.

If your proposal doesn't fit this remit please try one of the HTA programme's four sister programmes. For more information visit the NETSCC website.

View Submitting a successful application for the HTA Clinical Evaluation and Trials funding stream for more guidance on what to consider when developing your application.

Criteria used to assess proposals

All proposals received will undergo a two stage process of assessment. Firstly, proposals will be assessed by a panel to decide the priority of the topic to patients and the NHS. The panel will assess against the following criteria:

  • the importance of the problem to patients and the NHS
  • the outcomes chosen matter to patients and the NHS and the participants are representative of the case mix treated in the NHS
  • there is a clear case for the proposed research with reference to the current evidence base
  • the proposed study assesses the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a health technology.

Proposals will then be considered as to their suitability for firstly short-listing and then commissioning against the following criteria:

  • scientific quality of the proposal
  • there is a clear demonstration of the necessary skill mix, experience, and project management and infrastructure for success
  • explanation and justification for estimated recruitment rates
  • ethical, legal and social implications of the research proposed have been considered reasonable costs.

Advanced search How to use the search function