Isabella Giusepi 1 , Andrew St John 2 , Paul Jülicher 1 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health economic evaluations (HEEs) are effectively used to inform decision making in healthcare. We sought to assess the level of involvement of laboratory professionals (LPs) in HEEs of laboratory tests. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline (2013 to November 28, 2018) for original articles reporting HEEs of medical laboratory tests. Eligible studies were characterized by indication, utilization, region, setting, study design, primary outcome measures, and sponsorship. Authors were classified based on stated affiliation as clinician, scientist, public health expert, or LP. RESULTS: In total, 140 HEEs were included in the study, of which 24 (17.1%) had contributions from LPs. Studies were primarily focused on infectious disease (n = 68), oncology (n = 23), and cardiovascular disease (n = 16). Cost-utility or cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 117) were the most frequent study types, with effectiveness measured mainly in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (n = 57) and detected cases (n = 41). Overall, 76% of HEEs followed a social or health system perspective, whereas 15% took a hospital viewpoint. Partial or full funding was received from public health organizations or industry in 39% and 16% of studies, respectively. The involvement of LPs was associated with test utilization, secondary care, analytic perspective, and an immediate time horizon (all P < 0.05). Quality of studies was found to be lower in HEEs coauthored by LPs. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary collaboration is essential to understanding the complexity of clinical pathways. HEEs are used effectively to inform healthcare decision making. The involvement of LPs in HEEs is low. This implies that laboratory expertise is frequently not considered in decision processes. © American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
BACKGROUND: Health economic evaluations (HEEs) are effectively used to inform decision making in healthcare. We sought to assess the level of involvement of laboratory professionals (LPs) in HEEs of laboratory tests. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline (2013 to November 28, 2018) for original articles reporting HEEs of medical laboratory tests. Eligible studies were characterized by indication, utilization, region, setting, study design, primary outcome measures, and sponsorship. Authors were classified based on stated affiliation as clinician, scientist, public health expert, or LP. RESULTS: In total, 140 HEEs were included in the study, of which 24 (17.1%) had contributions from LPs. Studies were primarily focused on infectious disease (n = 68), oncology (n = 23), and cardiovascular disease (n = 16). Cost-utility or cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 117) were the most frequent study types, with effectiveness measured mainly in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (n = 57) and detected cases (n = 41). Overall, 76% of HEEs followed a social or health system perspective, whereas 15% took a hospital viewpoint. Partial or full funding was received from public health organizations or industry in 39% and 16% of studies, respectively. The involvement of LPs was associated with test utilization, secondary care, analytic perspective, and an immediate time horizon (all P < 0.05). Quality of studies was found to be lower in HEEs coauthored by LPs. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary collaboration is essential to understanding the complexity of clinical pathways. HEEs are used effectively to inform healthcare decision making. The involvement of LPs in HEEs is low. This implies that laboratory expertise is frequently not considered in decision processes. © American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Entities: Chemical
Keywords:
Health economic evaluation; cost-effectiveness; laboratory professionals; medical laboratory tests; value proposition
Mesh： See more »
Year: 2020
PMID： 32916710 DOI： 10.1093/jalm/jfaa107
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Appl Lab Med ISSN： 2475-7241