Literature DB >> 22308053

Valuing the economic benefits of complex interventions: when maximising health is not sufficient.

Katherine Payne1, Marion McAllister, Linda M Davies.   

Abstract

Complex interventions, involving interlinked packages of care, challenge the application of current methods of economic evaluation that focus on measuring only health gain. Complex interventions may be problematic on two levels. The complexity means the intervention may not fit into one of the current appraisal systems, and/or maximising health is not the only objective. This paper discusses the implications of a programme of work that focused on clinical genetics services, as an example of a complex intervention, and aimed to identify the following: the attributes that comprise both health and non-health aspects of benefits and whether it is possible to evaluate such an intervention using current National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence appraisal processes. Genetic services and tests are a good example of a complex intervention and have broader objectives than just health gain, which may usefully be measured using the concept related to capability, which we have called 'empowerment'. Further methodological work is required to identify the trade-off between non-health (empowerment) and health benefits for other complex interventions. We do not advocate a move away from QALY maximisation but do suggest that there is a need for a more considered approach that can take account of the perceived value for non-health attributes for some complex interventions.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22308053     DOI: 10.1002/hec.2795

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  40 in total

Review 1.  Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches.

Authors:  Dyfrig Hughes; Joanna Charles; Dalia Dawoud; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards; Emily Holmes; Carys Jones; Paul Parham; Catrin Plumpton; Colin Ridyard; Huw Lloyd-Williams; Eifiona Wood; Seow Tien Yeo
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Choice of Outcome Measure in an Economic Evaluation: A Potential Role for the Capability Approach.

Authors:  Paula K Lorgelly
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 3.  Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence.

Authors:  Richard De Abreu Lourenco; Marion Haas; Jane Hall; Rosalie Viney
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Cost effectiveness of a pharmacist-led information technology intervention for reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices (PINCER).

Authors:  Rachel A Elliott; Koen D Putman; Matthew Franklin; Lieven Annemans; Nick Verhaeghe; Martin Eden; Jasdeep Hayre; Sarah Rodgers; Aziz Sheikh; Anthony J Avery
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Methodological Issues in Assessing the Economic Value of Next-Generation Sequencing Tests: Many Challenges and Not Enough Solutions.

Authors:  Kathryn A Phillips; Patricia A Deverka; Deborah A Marshall; Sarah Wordsworth; Dean A Regier; Kurt D Christensen; James Buchanan
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 6.  Cost-effectiveness analyses of genetic and genomic diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Katherine Payne; Sean P Gavan; Stuart J Wright; Alexander J Thompson
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 53.242

7.  Patient Preferences for Pain Management in Advanced Cancer: Results from a Discrete Choice Experiment.

Authors:  David M Meads; John L O'Dwyer; Claire T Hulme; Phani Chintakayala; Karen Vinall-Collier; Michael I Bennett
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Economic Evaluation of Childhood Obesity Interventions: Reflections and Suggestions.

Authors:  Emma Frew
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Exploring the feasibility of delivering standardized genomic care using ophthalmology as an example.

Authors:  Niall Davison; Katherine Payne; Martin Eden; Marion McAllister; Stephen A Roberts; Stuart Ingram; Graeme C M Black; Georgina Hall
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Concepts of 'personalization' in personalized medicine: implications for economic evaluation.

Authors:  Wolf Rogowski; Katherine Payne; Petra Schnell-Inderst; Andrea Manca; Ursula Rochau; Beate Jahn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Reiner Leidl; Uwe Siebert
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.