Literature DB >> 16249933

Can economic evaluations be made more transferable?

Stephanie Boulenger1, John Nixon, Michael Drummond, Philippe Ulmann, Stephen Rice, Gerard de Pouvourville.   

Abstract

Several commentators have identified the lack of generalisability and transferability of economic evaluation results. The aims of this study were: (a) to develop a checklist to assess the level of generalisability and transferability of economic evaluations; (b) to assess the generalisability and transferability of economic evaluations between the UK and France using the checklist; (c) to identify reasons for any lack of transferability and generalisability; (d) to assess how the transferability and generalisability of economic evaluations can be improved; and (e) to outline ways in which databases of economic evaluations and journals can assist in this area. The checklist was developed using previous work and the templates of the NHS EED and CODECS databases. A sub-checklist of essential items was then derived. Validation of the two checklists was undertaken with Health Economists participating in the EURONHEED project. Economic evaluations involving the UK and France were then located and assessed using the checklist. A summary score for each study was calculated based on the percentage of correctly reported (applicable) points, and the results in the empirical analysis compared to identify differences. The extended checklist includes 42 items, and the sub-checklist 16 items. Twenty-five economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria for the empirical analysis. In the extended checklist the mean score was 66.9+/-13.6%. The results for the sub-checklist were very similar. The analysis revealed that costing, assessments of generalisability by the author(s), assessment of data variability, discounting, study population, and the reporting of effectiveness are areas that need more attention. Differences in cost-effectiveness results are often accounted for by price or organisational differences. The developed checklists are useful in assessing the generalisability and transferability of economic evaluations. In order to improve the generalisability and transferability of economic evaluations authors need to be more explicit and detailed in describing and reporting their studies. If they are to provide added value to their users, international databases of economic evaluations should systematically assess the generalisability and transferability of studies. Further research is in progress on producing a weighted version of the checklist.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16249933     DOI: 10.1007/s10198-005-0322-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Health Econ        ISSN: 1618-7598


  32 in total

1.  Coping with uncertainty on health decisions: assessing new solutions.

Authors:  Fernando Antoñanzas; Roberto Rodríguez-Ibeas; Carmelo A Juárez-Castelló
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2012-08

2.  The time for cost-effectiveness in the new European Union member states: the development and role of health economics and technology assessment in the mirror of the Hungarian experience.

Authors:  László Gulácsi
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2007-06

Review 3.  Challenges of translating genetic tests into clinical and public health practice.

Authors:  Wolf H Rogowski; Scott D Grosse; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 53.242

4.  Methodological reviews of economic evaluations in health care: what do they target?

Authors:  Maria-Florencia Hutter; Roberto Rodríguez-Ibeas; Fernando Antonanzas
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-08-24

Review 5.  Economic evaluations in the EURONHEED: a comparative analysis.

Authors:  Florencia Hutter; Fernando Antoñanzas
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  Barriers to generalizability of health economic evaluations in Latin America and the Caribbean region.

Authors:  Federico Augustovski; Cynthia Iglesias; Andrea Manca; Michael Drummond; Adolfo Rubinstein; Sebastián García Martí
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Conceptual framework for standard economic evaluation of physical activity programs in primary prevention.

Authors:  Silke B Wolfenstetter
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2011-12

Review 8.  The generalisability of pharmacoeconomic studies: issues and challenges ahead.

Authors:  James M Mason; Anne R Mason
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 9.  A systematic review of PET and PET/CT in oncology: a way to personalize cancer treatment in a cost-effective manner?

Authors:  Astrid Langer
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Present and future costs of COPD in Iceland and Norway: results from the BOLD study.

Authors:  R Nielsen; A Johannessen; B Benediktsdottir; T Gislason; A S Buist; A Gulsvik; S D Sullivan; T A Lee
Journal:  Eur Respir J       Date:  2009-04-08       Impact factor: 16.671

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.