Literature DB >> 32637652

Improving economic evaluations in stroke: A report from the ESO Health Economics Working Group.

Dominique A Cadilhac1,2, Joosup Kim1,2, Alastair Wilson3, Eivind Berge4, Anita Patel5,6, Myzoon Ali3,7, Jeffrey Saver8, Hanne Christensen9, Matthieu Cuche10, Sean Crews11, Olivia Wu12, Marine Provoyeur13, Peter McMeekin14, Isabelle Durand-Zaleski15, Gary A Ford16, Natalia Muhlemann17, Philip M Bath18, Azmil H Abdul-Rahim19, Katharina Sunnerhagen20, Atte Meretoja21,22, Vincent Thijs2, Christian Weimar23, Ayrton Massaro24,25, Annemarei Ranta26, Kennedy R Lees27.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Approaches to economic evaluations of stroke therapies are varied and inconsistently described. An objective of the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) Health Economics Working Group is to standardise and improve the economic evaluations of interventions for stroke.
METHODS: The ESO Health Economics Working Group and additional experts were contacted to develop a protocol and a guidance document for data collection for economic evaluations of stroke therapies. A modified Delphi approach, including a survey and consensus processes, was used to agree on content. We also asked the participants about resources that could be shared to improve economic evaluations of interventions for stroke.
RESULTS: Of 28 experts invited, 16 (57%) completed the initial survey, with representation from universities, government, and industry. More than half of the survey respondents endorsed 13 specific items to include in a standard resource use questionnaire. Preferred functional/quality of life outcome measures to use for economic evaluations were the modified Rankin Scale (14 respondents, 88%) and the EQ-5D instrument (11 respondents, 69%). Of the 12 respondents who had access to data used in economic evaluations, 10 (83%) indicated a willingness to share data. A protocol template and a guidance document for data collection were developed and are presented in this article.
CONCLUSION: The protocol template and guidance document for data collection will support a more standardised and transparent approach for economic evaluations of stroke care. © European Stroke Organisation 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EuroQol; Stroke; economic evaluation; health outcomes; health policy; modified Rankin Scale

Year:  2020        PMID: 32637652      PMCID: PMC7313366          DOI: 10.1177/2396987319897466

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Stroke J        ISSN: 2396-9873


  24 in total

1.  The Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) instrument is valid for assessing informal care time in community-living patients with dementia.

Authors:  A Wimo; L Jonsson; A Zbrozek
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 4.075

2.  Contemporary outcome measures in acute stroke research: choice of primary outcome measure.

Authors:  Kennedy R Lees; Philip M W Bath; Peter D Schellinger; Daniel M Kerr; Rachael Fulton; Werner Hacke; David Matchar; Ruchir Sehra; Danilo Toni
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2012-03-15       Impact factor: 7.914

3.  Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party.

Authors:  M F Drummond; T O Jefferson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-08-03

4.  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

Authors:  Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-03-25

5.  Economic Evaluation Plan (EEP) for A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial (AVERT): An international trial to compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of commencing out of bed standing and walking training (very early mobilization) within 24 h of stroke onset with usual stroke unit care.

Authors:  Lauren Sheppard; Helen Dewey; Julie Bernhardt; Janice M Collier; Fiona Ellery; Leonid Churilov; Kiu Tay-Teo; Olivia Wu; Marj Moodie
Journal:  Int J Stroke       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 5.266

6.  Addressing the challenges of cross-jurisdictional data linkage between a national clinical quality registry and government-held health data.

Authors:  Nadine E Andrew; Vijaya Sundararajan; Amanda G Thrift; Monique F Kilkenny; Judith Katzenellenbogen; Felicity Flack; Melina Gattellari; James H Boyd; Phil Anderson; Brenda Grabsch; Natasha A Lannin; Trisha Johnston; Ying Chen; Dominique A Cadilhac
Journal:  Aust N Z J Public Health       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 2.939

7.  Maximising data value and avoiding data waste: a validation study in stroke research.

Authors:  Monique F Kilkenny; Joosup Kim; Nadine E Andrew; Vijaya Sundararajan; Amanda G Thrift; Judith M Katzenellenbogen; Felicity Flack; Melina Gattellari; James H Boyd; Phil Anderson; Natasha Lannin; Mark Sipthorp; Ying Chen; Trisha Johnston; Craig S Anderson; Sandy Middleton; Geoffrey A Donnan; Dominique A Cadilhac
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 7.738

8.  Adopting a Patient-Centered Approach to Primary Outcome Analysis of Acute Stroke Trials Using a Utility-Weighted Modified Rankin Scale.

Authors:  Napasri Chaisinanunkul; Opeolu Adeoye; Roger J Lewis; James C Grotta; Joseph Broderick; Tudor G Jovin; Raul G Nogueira; Jordan J Elm; Todd Graves; Scott Berry; Kennedy R Lees; Andrew D Barreto; Jeffrey L Saver
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 7.914

9.  Direct costs of patients with stroke can be continuously monitored on a national level: performance, effectiveness, and Costs of Treatment episodes in Stroke (PERFECT Stroke) Database in Finland.

Authors:  Atte Meretoja; Markku Kaste; Risto O Roine; Merja Juntunen; Miika Linna; Matti Hillbom; Reijo Marttila; Terttu Erilä; Aimo Rissanen; Juhani Sivenius; Unto Häkkinen
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2011-04-28       Impact factor: 7.914

10.  Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale.

Authors:  Pamela W Duncan; Rita K Bode; Sue Min Lai; Subashan Perera
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.966

View more
  5 in total

1.  Cost-Effectiveness of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy Implementation in Neurorehabilitation: The ACTIveARM Project.

Authors:  Lauren J Christie; Nicola Fearn; Annie McCluskey; Meryl Lovarini; Reem Rendell; Alison Pearce
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2022-03-22

2.  Economic Evaluation Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan for the Cost-Effectiveness of a Novel Australian Stroke Telemedicine Program; the Victorian Stroke Telemedicine (VST) program.

Authors:  Dominique A Cadilhac; Lauren Sheppard; Joosup Kim; Elise Tan; Lan Gao; Garveeta Sookram; Helen M Dewey; Christopher F Bladin; Marj Moodie
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 4.003

3.  Societal burden of stroke rehabilitation: Costs and health outcomes after admission to stroke rehabilitation.

Authors:  Winke van Meijeren-Pont; Sietske J Tamminga; Paulien H Goossens; Iris F Groeneveld; Henk Arwert; Jorit J L Meesters; Radha Rambaran Mishre; Thea P M Vlieland; Wilbert B van den Hout
Journal:  J Rehabil Med       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 2.912

Review 4.  A Scoping Review of Non-Pharmacological, Non-Surgical Secondary Prevention Strategies in Ischaemic Stroke and TIA in National Stroke Guidelines and Clinical Audit Documents.

Authors:  Patricia Hall; Lena von Koch; Xu Wang; Olive Lennon
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-04

5.  A pilot economic evaluation of a feasibility trial for SUpporting wellbeing through PEeR-Befriending (SUPERB) for post-stroke aphasia.

Authors:  Chris Flood; Nicholas Behn; Jane Marshall; Alan Simpson; Sarah Northcott; Shirley Thomas; Kimberley Goldsmith; Sally McVicker; Mireia Jofre-Bonet; Katerina Hilari
Journal:  Clin Rehabil       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 3.477

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.