Tracey H Sach1, James Desborough2, Julie Houghton3, Richard Holland1. 1. Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 2. School of Pharmacy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 3. School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Economic methods are underutilised within pharmacy research resulting in a lack of quality evidence to support funding decisions for pharmacy interventions. The aim of this study is to illustrate the methods of micro-costing within the pharmacy context in order to raise awareness and use of this approach in pharmacy research. METHODS: Micro-costing methods are particularly useful where a new service or intervention is being evaluated and for which no previous estimates of the costs of providing the service exist. This paper describes the rationale for undertaking a micro-costing study before detailing and illustrating the process involved. The illustration relates to a recently completed trial of multi-professional medication reviews as an intervention provided in care homes. All costs are presented in UK£2012. KEY FINDINGS: In general, costing methods involve three broad steps (identification, measurement and valuation); when using micro-costing, closer attention to detail is required within all three stages of this process. The mean (standard deviation; 95% confidence interval (CI) ) cost per resident of the multi-professional medication review intervention was £104.80 (50.91; 98.72 to 109.45), such that the overall cost of providing the intervention to all intervention home residents was £36,221.29 (95% CI, 32 810.81 to 39 631.77). CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that micro-costing can be a useful method, not only for estimating the cost of a pharmacy intervention to feed into a pharmacy economic evaluation, but also as a source of information to help inform those designing pharmacy services about the potential time and costs involved in delivering such services.
OBJECTIVES: Economic methods are underutilised within pharmacy research resulting in a lack of quality evidence to support funding decisions for pharmacy interventions. The aim of this study is to illustrate the methods of micro-costing within the pharmacy context in order to raise awareness and use of this approach in pharmacy research. METHODS: Micro-costing methods are particularly useful where a new service or intervention is being evaluated and for which no previous estimates of the costs of providing the service exist. This paper describes the rationale for undertaking a micro-costing study before detailing and illustrating the process involved. The illustration relates to a recently completed trial of multi-professional medication reviews as an intervention provided in care homes. All costs are presented in UK£2012. KEY FINDINGS: In general, costing methods involve three broad steps (identification, measurement and valuation); when using micro-costing, closer attention to detail is required within all three stages of this process. The mean (standard deviation; 95% confidence interval (CI) ) cost per resident of the multi-professional medication review intervention was £104.80 (50.91; 98.72 to 109.45), such that the overall cost of providing the intervention to all intervention home residents was £36,221.29 (95% CI, 32 810.81 to 39 631.77). CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated that micro-costing can be a useful method, not only for estimating the cost of a pharmacy intervention to feed into a pharmacy economic evaluation, but also as a source of information to help inform those designing pharmacy services about the potential time and costs involved in delivering such services.
Authors: Ian D Cameron; Suzanne M Dyer; Claire E Panagoda; Geoffrey R Murray; Keith D Hill; Robert G Cumming; Ngaire Kerse Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-09-07
Authors: Suzete Costa; José Guerreiro; Inês Teixeira; Dennis K Helling; João Pereira; Céu Mateus Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 5.988
Authors: Adam J Noble; Dee Snape; Sarah Nevitt; Emily A Holmes; Myfanwy Morgan; Catrin Tudur-Smith; Dyfrig A Hughes; Mark Buchanan; Jane McVicar; Elizabeth MacCallum; Steve Goodacre; Leone Ridsdale; Anthony G Marson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 2.692