Emelie Heintz1,2, Andreas Gerber-Grote3, Salah Ghabri4, Francoise F Hamers4, Valentina Prevolnik Rupel5, Renata Slabe-Erker5, Thomas Davidson6,7. 1. Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), Box 3657, SE 103 59, Stockholm, Sweden. emelie.heintz@sbu.se. 2. Center for Medical Technology Assessment (CMT), Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. emelie.heintz@sbu.se. 3. Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany. andreas.gerber-grote@iqwig.de. 4. Department of Economic and Public Health Evaluation, Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), Saint-Denis, France. 5. Institute for Economic Research (IER), Ljubljana, Slovenia. 6. Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU), Box 3657, SE 103 59, Stockholm, Sweden. 7. Center for Medical Technology Assessment (CMT), Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to review current methodological guidelines for economic evaluations of all types of technologies in the 33 countries with organizations involved in the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), and to provide a general framework for economic evaluation at a European level. METHODS: Methodological guidelines for health economic evaluations used by EUnetHTA partners were collected through a survey. Information from each guideline was extracted using a pre-tested extraction template. On the basis of the extracted information, a summary describing the methods used by the EUnetHTA countries was written for each methodological item. General recommendations were formulated for methodological issues where the guidelines of the EUnetHTA partners were in agreement or where the usefulness of economic evaluations may be increased by presenting the results in a specific way. RESULTS: At least one contact person from all 33 EUnetHTA countries (100 %) responded to the survey. In total, the review included 51 guidelines, representing 25 countries (eight countries had no methodological guideline for health economic evaluations). On the basis of the results of the extracted information from all 51 guidelines, EUnetHTA issued ten main recommendations for health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: The presented review of methodological guidelines for health economic evaluations and the consequent recommendations will hopefully improve the comparability, transferability and overall usefulness of economic evaluations performed within EUnetHTA. Nevertheless, there are still methodological issues that need to be investigated further.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to review current methodological guidelines for economic evaluations of all types of technologies in the 33 countries with organizations involved in the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), and to provide a general framework for economic evaluation at a European level. METHODS: Methodological guidelines for health economic evaluations used by EUnetHTA partners were collected through a survey. Information from each guideline was extracted using a pre-tested extraction template. On the basis of the extracted information, a summary describing the methods used by the EUnetHTA countries was written for each methodological item. General recommendations were formulated for methodological issues where the guidelines of the EUnetHTA partners were in agreement or where the usefulness of economic evaluations may be increased by presenting the results in a specific way. RESULTS: At least one contact person from all 33 EUnetHTA countries (100 %) responded to the survey. In total, the review included 51 guidelines, representing 25 countries (eight countries had no methodological guideline for health economic evaluations). On the basis of the results of the extracted information from all 51 guidelines, EUnetHTA issued ten main recommendations for health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: The presented review of methodological guidelines for health economic evaluations and the consequent recommendations will hopefully improve the comparability, transferability and overall usefulness of economic evaluations performed within EUnetHTA. Nevertheless, there are still methodological issues that need to be investigated further.
Authors: Julio López-Bastida; Juan Oliva; Fernando Antoñanzas; Anna García-Altés; Ramón Gisbert; Javier Mar; Jaume Puig-Junoy Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2010-04-20
Authors: Siok Swan Tan; Clazien A M Bouwmans; Frans F H Rutten; Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Josephine Mauskopf; Jeffrey Walter; Julie Birt; Lee Bowman; Catherine Copley-Merriman; Michael Drummond Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Tomas Mlcoch; Jan Tuzil; Liliana Sedova; Jiri Stolfa; Monika Urbanova; David Suchy; Andrea Smrzova; Jitka Jircikova; Tereza Hrnciarova; Karel Pavelka; Tomas Dolezal Journal: Patient Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Juan Oliva-Moreno; Marta Trapero-Bertran; Luz Maria Peña-Longobardo; Raúl Del Pozo-Rubio Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.981