Literature DB >> 21067622

The use of economic evaluation in CAM: an introductory framework.

Emily Ford1, Daniela Solomon, Jon Adams, Nicholas Graves.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For CAM to feature prominently in health care decision-making there is a need to expand the evidence-base and to further incorporate economic evaluation into research priorities.In a world of scarce health care resources and an emphasis on efficiency and clinical efficacy, CAM, as indeed do all other treatments, requires rigorous evaluation to be considered in budget decision-making.
METHODS: Economic evaluation provides the tools to measure the costs and health consequences of CAM interventions and thereby inform decision making. This article offers CAM researchers an introductory framework for understanding, undertaking and disseminating economic evaluation. The types of economic evaluation available for the study of CAM are discussed, and decision modelling is introduced as a method for economic evaluation with much potential for use in CAM. Two types of decision models are introduced, decision trees and Markov models, along with a worked example of how each method is used to examine costs and health consequences. This is followed by a discussion of how this information is used by decision makers.
CONCLUSIONS: Undoubtedly, economic evaluation methods form an important part of health care decision making. Without formal training it can seem a daunting task to consider economic evaluation, however, multidisciplinary teams provide an opportunity for health economists, CAM practitioners and other interested researchers, to work together to further develop the economic evaluation of CAM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21067622      PMCID: PMC2992473          DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-10-66

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Complement Altern Med        ISSN: 1472-6882            Impact factor:   3.659


  32 in total

Review 1.  A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation.

Authors:  J Brazier; M Deverill; C Green; R Harper; A Booth
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 2.  Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis.

Authors:  A J Sutton; K R Abrams
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.021

Review 3.  On the integration of complementary and conventional medicine within health maintenance organizations.

Authors:  Richard T Meenan; Nancy Vuckovic
Journal:  J Ambul Care Manage       Date:  2004 Jan-Mar

4.  National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments.

Authors:  Michael D Rawlins; Anthony J Culyer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-07-24

Review 5.  The use of QALYs in health care decision making.

Authors:  G Loomes; L McKenzie
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute For Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Authors:  Karl Claxton; Mark Sculpher; Michael Drummond
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-08-31       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Complementary or alternative medicine: towards establishing 'value for money'.

Authors:  Robbert van Haselen
Journal:  Complement Ther Med       Date:  2006-01-31       Impact factor: 2.446

8.  Modelling in economic evaluation: an unavoidable fact of life.

Authors:  M J Buxton; M F Drummond; B A Van Hout; R L Prince; T A Sheldon; T Szucs; M Vray
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  1997 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.046

9.  Auditing outcomes and costs of integrated complementary medicine provision--the importance of length of follow up.

Authors:  Nicola Robinson; Julie Donaldson; Hilary Watt
Journal:  Complement Ther Clin Pract       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 2.446

10.  Whither trial-based economic evaluation for health care decision making?

Authors:  Mark J Sculpher; Karl Claxton; Mike Drummond; Chris McCabe
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.046

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.