Colin H Ridyard1, Dyfrig A Hughes. 1. Centre for Economics & Policy in Health, Institute of Medical and Social Care Research, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The UK Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program funds trials that address issues of clinical and cost-effectiveness to meet the needs of the National Health Service (NHS). The objective of this review was to systematically assess the methods of resource use data collection and costing; and to produce a best practice guide for data capture within economic analyses alongside clinical trials. METHODS: All 100 HTA-funded primary research papers published to June 2009 were reviewed for the health economic methods employed. Data were extracted and summarized by: health technology assessed, costing perspective adopted, evidence of planning and piloting, data collection method, frequency of data collection, and sources of unit cost data. RESULTS: Ninety-five studies were identified as having conducted an economic analysis, of which 85 recorded patient-level resource use. The review identified important differences in how data are collected. These included: a priori evidence of analysts having identified important cost drivers; the piloting and validation of patient-completed resource use questionnaires; choice of costing perspective; and frequency of data collection. Areas of commonality included: the extensive use of routine medical records and reliance on patient recall; and the use of standard sources of unit costs. CONCLUSION: Economic data collection is variable, even among a homogeneous selection of trials designed to meet the needs of a common organization (NHS). Areas for improvement have been identified, and based on our findings and related reviews and guidelines, a checklist is proposed for good practice relating to economic data collection within clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: The UK Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program funds trials that address issues of clinical and cost-effectiveness to meet the needs of the National Health Service (NHS). The objective of this review was to systematically assess the methods of resource use data collection and costing; and to produce a best practice guide for data capture within economic analyses alongside clinical trials. METHODS: All 100 HTA-funded primary research papers published to June 2009 were reviewed for the health economic methods employed. Data were extracted and summarized by: health technology assessed, costing perspective adopted, evidence of planning and piloting, data collection method, frequency of data collection, and sources of unit cost data. RESULTS: Ninety-five studies were identified as having conducted an economic analysis, of which 85 recorded patient-level resource use. The review identified important differences in how data are collected. These included: a priori evidence of analysts having identified important cost drivers; the piloting and validation of patient-completed resource use questionnaires; choice of costing perspective; and frequency of data collection. Areas of commonality included: the extensive use of routine medical records and reliance on patient recall; and the use of standard sources of unit costs. CONCLUSION: Economic data collection is variable, even among a homogeneous selection of trials designed to meet the needs of a common organization (NHS). Areas for improvement have been identified, and based on our findings and related reviews and guidelines, a checklist is proposed for good practice relating to economic data collection within clinical trials.
Authors: A Hung; Y Li; F J Keefe; D C Ang; J Slover; R A Perera; L Dumenci; S D Reed; D L Riddle Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Zoe McCarroll; Julia Townson; Timothy Pickles; John W Gregory; Rebecca Playle; Michael Robling; Dyfrig A Hughes Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Conor L Mallucci; Michael D Jenkinson; Elizabeth J Conroy; John C Hartley; Michaela Brown; Tracy Moitt; Joanne Dalton; Tom Kearns; Michael J Griffiths; Giovanna Culeddu; Tom Solomon; Dyfrig Hughes; Carrol Gamble Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 4.014