Anton L V Avanceña1, Lisa A Prosser2. 1. Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Electronic address: antonlv@umich.edu. 2. Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research (CHEAR) Center, Department of Pediatrics, Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to catalogue and describe published applications of equity-informative cost-effectiveness analysis (CEAs). METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline for English-language, peer-reviewed CEAs published on or before August 2019. We included CEAs that evaluated 2 or more alternatives; explicitly mentioned equity as a consideration or decision-making principle; and applied an equity-informative CEA method to analyze or examine at least 1 equity criterion in an applied CEA. We extracted data on selected characteristics and analyzed reporting quality using the CHEERS checklist. RESULTS: Fifty-four articles identified through a search and bibliography reviews met the inclusion criteria. All articles were published on or after 2010, with 80% published after 2015. Most studies evaluated primary prevention interventions in disease areas such as cancer, infectious diseases, and cardiovascular disease. Equity impact analysis alone was the most common equity-informative CEA (56%), followed by equity impact analysis with financial protection effects (30%). At least 11 different equity criteria have been used in equity-informative CEAs; socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity were used most frequently. Seventy-eight percent of studies reported finding "greater value" in an intervention after examining its distributional effects. CONCLUSION: The number of equity-informative CEAs is increasing, and the wide range of equity criteria, diseases, interventions, settings, and populations represented suggests that broad application of these methods is feasible but will require further refinement. Inclusion of equity into CEAs may shift the value of evaluated interventions and can provide crucial additional information for decision makers.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to catalogue and describe published applications of equity-informative cost-effectiveness analysis (CEAs). METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched Medline for English-language, peer-reviewed CEAs published on or before August 2019. We included CEAs that evaluated 2 or more alternatives; explicitly mentioned equity as a consideration or decision-making principle; and applied an equity-informative CEA method to analyze or examine at least 1 equity criterion in an applied CEA. We extracted data on selected characteristics and analyzed reporting quality using the CHEERS checklist. RESULTS: Fifty-four articles identified through a search and bibliography reviews met the inclusion criteria. All articles were published on or after 2010, with 80% published after 2015. Most studies evaluated primary prevention interventions in disease areas such as cancer, infectious diseases, and cardiovascular disease. Equity impact analysis alone was the most common equity-informative CEA (56%), followed by equity impact analysis with financial protection effects (30%). At least 11 different equity criteria have been used in equity-informative CEAs; socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity were used most frequently. Seventy-eight percent of studies reported finding "greater value" in an intervention after examining its distributional effects. CONCLUSION: The number of equity-informative CEAs is increasing, and the wide range of equity criteria, diseases, interventions, settings, and populations represented suggests that broad application of these methods is feasible but will require further refinement. Inclusion of equity into CEAs may shift the value of evaluated interventions and can provide crucial additional information for decision makers.
Authors: Yumi Asukai; Andrew Briggs; Louis P Garrison; Benjamin P Geisler; Peter J Neumann; Daniel A Ollendorf Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 4.981