Posted Content•
Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes
TL;DR: The fourth edition of the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes as mentioned in this paper has been thoroughly revised and updated, making it essential reading for anyone commissioning, undertaking, or using economic evaluations in health care, including health service professionals, health economists, and health care decision makers.
Abstract: The purpose of economic evaluation is to inform decisions intended to improve healthcare. The new edition of Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes equips the reader with the necessary tools and understanding required to undertake evaluations by providing an outline of key principles and a 'tool kit' based on the authors' own experiences of undertaking economic evaluations. Building on the strength of the previous edition, the accessible writing style ensures the text is key reading for the non-expert reader, as no prior knowledge of economics is required. The book employs a critical appraisal framework, which is useful both to researchers conducting studies and to decision-makers assessing them. Practical examples are provided throughout to aid learning and understanding. The book discusses the analytical and policy challenges that face health systems in seeking to allocate resources efficiently and fairly. New chapters include 'Principles of economic evaluation' and 'Making decisions in healthcare' which introduces the reader to core issues and questions about resource allocation, and provides an understanding of the fundamental principles which guide decision making. A key part of evidence-based decision making is the analysis of all the relevant evidence to make informed decisions and policy. The new chapter 'Identifying, synthesising and analysing evidence' highlights the importance of systematic review, and how and why these methods are used. As methods of analysis continue to develop, the chapter on 'Characterising, reporting and interpreting uncertainty' introduces the reader to recent methods of analysis and why characterizing uncertainty matters for health care decisions. The fourth edition of Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes has been thoroughly revised and updated, making it essential reading for anyone commissioning, undertaking, or using economic evaluations in health care, including health service professionals, health economists, and health care decision makers.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, a systematic review of the effectiveness and costs of different guideline development, dissemination and implementation strategies was carried out with key informants from primary and secondary care in the UK.
Abstract: OBJECTIVES: To undertake a systematic review of the effectiveness and costs of different guideline development, dissemination and implementation strategies. To estimate the resource implications of these strategies. To develop a framework for deciding when it is efficient to develop and introduce clinical guidelines. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Healthstar, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, EMBASE, SIGLE and the specialised register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. REVIEW METHODS: Single estimates of dichotomous process variables were derived for each study comparison based upon the primary end-point or the median measure across several reported end-points. Separate analyses were undertaken for comparisons of different types of intervention. The study also explored whether the effects of multifaceted interventions increased with the number of intervention components. Studies reporting economic data were also critically appraised. A survey to estimate the feasibility and likely resource requirements of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies in UK settings was carried out with key informants from primary and secondary care. RESULTS: In total, 235 studies reporting 309 comparisons met the inclusion criteria; of these 73% of comparisons evaluated multifaceted interventions, although the maximum number of replications of a specific multifaceted intervention was 11 comparisons. Overall, the majority of comparisons reporting dichotomous process data observed improvements in care; however, there was considerable variation in the observed effects both within and across interventions. Commonly evaluated single interventions were reminders, dissemination of educational materials, and audit and feedback. There were 23 comparisons of multifaceted interventions involving educational outreach. The majority of interventions observed modest to moderate improvements in care. No relationship was found between the number of component interventions and the effects of multifaceted interventions. Only 29.4% of comparisons reported any economic data. The majority of studies only reported costs of treatment; only 25 studies reported data on the costs of guideline development or guideline dissemination and implementation. The majority of studies used process measures for their primary end-point, despite the fact that only three guidelines were explicitly evidence based (and may not have been efficient). Respondents to the key informant survey rarely identified existing budgets to support guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. In general, the respondents thought that only dissemination of educational materials and short (lunchtime) educational meetings were generally feasible within current resources. CONCLUSIONS: There is an imperfect evidence base to support decisions about which guideline dissemination and implementation strategies are likely to be efficient under different circumstances. Decision makers need to use considerable judgement about how best to use the limited resources they have for clinical governance and related activities to maximise population benefits. They need to consider the potential clinical areas for clinical effectiveness activities, the likely benefits and costs required to introduce guidelines and the likely benefits and costs as a result of any changes in provider behaviour. Further research is required to: develop and validate a coherent theoretical framework of health professional and organisational behaviour and behaviour change to inform better the choice of interventions in research and service settings, and to estimate the efficiency of dissemination and implementation strategies in the presence of different barriers and effect modifiers.
2,733 citations
Duke University1, Tufts Medical Center2, University of Washington3, Harvard University4, McMaster University5, University Health Network6, University of Minnesota7, University of Chicago8, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System9, University of Michigan10, University of York11, Brown University12, Rutgers University13, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute14, University of Miami15
TL;DR: The Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine reviewed the current status of the field of cost-effectiveness analysis and developed a new set of recommendations, including the recommendation to perform analyses from 2 reference case perspectives and to provide an impact inventory to clarify included consequences.
Abstract: Importance Since publication of the report by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 1996, researchers have advanced the methods of cost-effectiveness analysis, and policy makers have experimented with its application. The need to deliver health care efficiently and the importance of using analytic techniques to understand the clinical and economic consequences of strategies to improve health have increased in recent years. Objective To review the state of the field and provide recommendations to improve the quality of cost-effectiveness analyses. The intended audiences include researchers, government policy makers, public health officials, health care administrators, payers, businesses, clinicians, patients, and consumers. Design In 2012, the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine was formed and included 2 co-chairs, 13 members, and 3 additional members of a leadership group. These members were selected on the basis of their experience in the field to provide broad expertise in the design, conduct, and use of cost-effectiveness analyses. Over the next 3.5 years, the panel developed recommendations by consensus. These recommendations were then reviewed by invited external reviewers and through a public posting process. Findings The concept of a “reference case” and a set of standard methodological practices that all cost-effectiveness analyses should follow to improve quality and comparability are recommended. All cost-effectiveness analyses should report 2 reference case analyses: one based on a health care sector perspective and another based on a societal perspective. The use of an “impact inventory,” which is a structured table that contains consequences (both inside and outside the formal health care sector), intended to clarify the scope and boundaries of the 2 reference case analyses is also recommended. This special communication reviews these recommendations and others concerning the estimation of the consequences of interventions, the valuation of health outcomes, and the reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. Conclusions and Relevance The Second Panel reviewed the current status of the field of cost-effectiveness analysis and developed a new set of recommendations. Major changes include the recommendation to perform analyses from 2 reference case perspectives and to provide an impact inventory to clarify included consequences.
1,995 citations
TL;DR: Riedel DJ, Gonzalez-Cuyar LF, Zhao XF, Redfi eld RR, Gilliam BL as discussed by the authors, and Redfellow RR have reported CD138-negative plasmablastic lymphoma cases (such as this case).
Abstract: Riedel DJ, Gonzalez-Cuyar LF, Zhao XF, Redfi eld RR, Gilliam BL. Plasmablastic lymphoma of the oral cavity: a rapidly progressive lymphoma associated with HIV infection. Lancet Infect Dis 2008; 8: 261–67. In this Grand Round, the references for the sentence “Occasionally, CD138-negative plasmablastic lymphoma cases (such as this case) have been reported” (page 265) should be 32, 34, and 38. Book Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
1,743 citations
Health Science University1, University of Ottawa2, University of York3, University of Warwick4, Abu Dhabi Indian School5, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute6, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev7, Tufts Medical Center8, University of Buenos Aires9, University of Glasgow10, Research Triangle Park11, Brigham and Women's Hospital12
TL;DR: The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance and it is hoped that this guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions.
1,563 citations
TL;DR: The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement as mentioned in this paper is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance.
Abstract: Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/ EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
1,454 citations