Estimating the returns to United Kingdom publicly funded musculoskeletal disease research in terms of net value of improved health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Building on an approach applied to cardiovascular and cancer research, we estimated the economic returns from United Kingdom public- and charitable-funded musculoskeletal disease (MSD) research that arise from the net value of the improved health outcomes in the United Kingdom. METHODS: To calculate the economic returns from MSD-related research in the United Kingdom, we estimated (1) the public and charitable expenditure on MSD-related research in the United Kingdom between 1970 and 2013; (2) the net monetary benefit (NMB), derived from the health benefit in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) valued in monetary terms (using a base-case value of a QALY of £25,000) minus the cost of delivering that benefit, for a prioritised list of interventions from 1994 to 2013; (3) the proportion of NMB attributable to United Kingdom research; and (4) the elapsed time between research funding and health gain. The data collected from these four key elements were used to estimate the internal rate of return (IRR) from MSD-related research investments on health benefits. We analysed the uncertainties in the IRR estimate using a one-way sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Expressed in 2013 prices, total expenditure on MSD-related research from 1970 to 2013 was £3.5 billion, and for the period used to estimate the rate of return, 1978-1997, was £1.4 billion. Over the period 1994-2013 the key interventions analysed produced 871,000 QALYs with a NMB of £16 billion, allowing for the net NHS costs resulting from them and valuing a QALY at £25,000. The proportion of benefit attributable to United Kingdom research was 30% and the elapsed time between funding and impact of MSD treatments was 16 years. Our best estimate of the IRR from MSD-related research was 7%, which is similar to the 9% for CVD and 10% for cancer research. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimate of the IRR from the net health gain to public and charitable funding of MSD-related research in the United Kingdom is substantial, and justifies the research investments made between 1978 and 1997. We also demonstrated the applicability of the approach previously used in assessing the returns from cardiovascular and cancer research. Inevitably, with a study of this kind, there are a number of important assumptions and caveats that we highlight, and these can inform future research.

Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Building on an approach developed to assess the economic returns to cardiovascular research, we estimated the economic returns from UK public and charitable funded cancer-related research that arise from the net value of the improved health outcomes. METHODS: To assess these economic returns from cancer-related research in the UK we estimated: 1) public and charitable expenditure on cancer-related research in the UK from 1970 to 2009; 2) net monetary benefit (NMB), that is, the health benefit measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) valued in monetary terms (using a base-case value of a QALY of GB£25,000) minus the cost of delivering that benefit, for a prioritised list of interventions from 1991 to 2010; 3) the proportion of NMB attributable to UK research; 4) the elapsed time between research funding and health gain; and 5) the internal rate of return (IRR) from cancer-related research investments on health benefits. We analysed the uncertainties in the IRR estimate using sensitivity analyses to illustrate the effect of some key parameters. RESULTS: In 2011/12 prices, total expenditure on cancer-related research from 1970 to 2009 was £15 billion. The NMB of the 5.9 million QALYs gained from the prioritised interventions from 1991 to 2010 was £124 billion. Calculation of the IRR incorporated an estimated elapsed time of 15 years. We related 17% of the annual NMB estimated to be attributable to UK research (for each of the 20 years 1991 to 2010) to 20 years of research investment 15 years earlier (that is, for 1976 to 1995). This produced a best-estimate IRR of 10%, compared with 9% previously estimated for cardiovascular disease research. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated the importance of smoking reduction as a major source of improved cancer-related health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated a substantive IRR from net health gain to public and charitable funding of cancer-related research in the UK, and further validated the approach that we originally used in assessing the returns from cardiovascular research. In doing so, we have highlighted a number of weaknesses and key assumptions that need strengthening in further investigations. Nevertheless, these cautious estimates demonstrate that the returns from past cancer research have been substantial, and justify the investments made during the period 1976 to 1995.

Illustrating potential efficiency gains from using cost-effectiveness evidence to reallocate Medicare expenditures.

OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services does not explicitly use cost-effectiveness information in national coverage determinations. The objective of this study was to illustrate potential efficiency gains from reallocating Medicare expenditures by using cost-effectiveness information, and the consequences for health gains among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: We included national coverage determinations from 1999 through 2007. Estimates of cost-effectiveness were identified through a literature review. For coverage decisions with an associated cost-effectiveness estimate, we estimated utilization and size of the "unserved" eligible population by using a Medicare claims database (2007) and diagnostic and reimbursement codes. Technology costs originated from the cost-effectiveness literature or were estimated by using reimbursement codes. We illustrated potential aggregate health gains from increasing utilization of dominant interventions (i.e., cost saving and health increasing) and from reallocating expenditures by decreasing investment in cost-ineffective interventions and increasing investment in relatively cost-effective interventions. RESULTS: Complete information was available for 36 interventions. Increasing investment in dominant interventions alone led to an increase of 270,000 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and savings of $12.9 billion. Reallocation of a broader array of interventions yielded an additional 1.8 million QALYs, approximately 0.17 QALYs per affected Medicare beneficiary. Compared with the distribution of resources prior to reallocation, following reallocation a greater proportion was directed to oncology, diagnostic imaging/tests, and the most prevalent diseases. A smaller proportion of resources went to cardiology, treatments (including drugs, surgeries, and medical devices, as opposed to nontreatments such as preventive services), and the least prevalent diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Using cost-effectiveness information has the potential to increase the aggregate health of Medicare beneficiaries while maintaining existing spending levels.

Physical activity in England: who is meeting the recommended level of participation through sports and exercise?

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the correlates of meeting recommended levels of participation in physical activity (PA) and how this understanding informs public health policies on behaviour change. OBJECTIVE: To analyse who meets the recommended level of participation in PA in males and females separately by applying 'process' modelling frameworks (single vs. sequential 2-step process). METHODS: Using the Health Survey for England 2006, (n = 14 142; ≥ 16 years), gender-specific regression models were estimated using bivariate probit with selectivity correction and single probit models. A 'sequential, 2-step process' modelled participation and meeting the recommended level separately, whereas the 'single process' considered both participation and level together. RESULTS: In females, meeting the recommended level was associated with degree holders [Marginal effect (ME) = 0.013] and age (ME = -0.001), whereas in males, age was a significant correlate (ME = -0.003 to -0.004). The order of importance of correlates was similar across genders, with ethnicity being the most important correlate in both males (ME = -0.060) and females (ME = -0.133). In females, the 'sequential, 2-step process' performed better (ρ = -0.364, P < 0.001) than that in males (ρ = 0.154). CONCLUSION: The degree to which people undertake the recommended level of PA through vigorous activity varies between males and females, and the process that best predicts such decisions, i.e. whether it is a sequential, 2-step process or a single-step choice, is also different for males and females. Understanding this should help to identify subgroups that are less likely to meet the recommended level of PA (and hence more likely to benefit from any PA promotion intervention).

Exploring what lies behind public preferences for avoiding health losses caused by lapses in healthcare safety and patient lifestyle choices.

BACKGROUND: Although many studies have identified public preferences for prioritising health care interventions based on characteristics of recipient or care, very few of them have examined the reasons for the stated preferences. We conducted an on-line person trade-off (PTO) study (N=1030) to investigate whether the public attach a premium to the avoidance of ill health associated with alternative types of responsibilities: lapses in healthcare safety, those caused by individual action or lifestyle choice; or genetic conditions. We found that the public gave higher priority to prevention of harm in a hospital setting such as preventing hospital associated infections than genetic disorder but drug administration errors were valued similar to genetic disorders. Prevention of staff injuries, lifestyle diseases and sports injuries, were given lower priority. In this paper we aim to understand the reasoning behind the responses by analysing comments provided by respondents to the PTO questions. METHOD: A majority of the respondents who participated in the survey provided brief comments explaining preferences in free text responses following PTO questions. This qualitative data was transformed into explicit codes conveying similar meanings. An overall coding framework was developed and a reliability test was carried out. Recurrent patterns were identified in each preference group. Comments which challenged the assumptions of hypothetical scenarios were also investigated. RESULTS: NHS causation of illness and a duty of care were the most cited reasons to prioritise lapses in healthcare safety. Personal responsibility dominated responses for lifestyle related contexts, and many respondents mentioned that health loss was the result of the individual's choice to engage in risky behaviour. A small proportion of responses questioned the assumptions underlying the PTO questions. However excluding these from the main analysis did not affect the conclusions. CONCLUSION: Although some responses indicated misunderstanding or rejection of assumptions we put forward, the results were still robust. The reasons put forward for responses differed between comparisons but responsibility was the most frequently cited. Most preference elicitation studies only focus on eliciting numerical valuations but allowing for qualitative data can augment understanding of preferences as well as verifying results.

Factors predicting Medicare national coverage: an empirical analysis.

BACKGROUND: Interventions considered to be particularly controversial or expected to significantly impact the Medicare program in the United States are considered in National Coverage Determinations. Medicare coverage for such interventions is limited to those deemed "reasonable and necessary" for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury. What constitutes reasonable and necessary has not, however, been clearly defined. OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with positive National Coverage Determinations. RESEARCH DESIGN: A dataset of coverage decisions from 1999 to 2007 (n=195) was created with the following variables: direction of coverage decision; quality of supporting evidence; availability of alternative interventions; cost-effectiveness of intervention; type of intervention; coverage requestor; and year of decision. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with positive coverage. RESULTS: The following variables were independently associated with positive Medicare coverage: good or fair quality supporting evidence (adjusted odds ratio, OR=6.04, P<0.01); presence of an alternative intervention (OR=0.130, P<0.01); no associated estimate of cost-effectiveness (OR=0.190, P<0.05). In addition, in comparison with coverage decisions made in the years 1999 to 2001, those made in the years 2002 to 2003, 2004 to 2005, and 2006 to 2007, were associated with positive coverage [ORs of 0.311 (P<0.05), 0.310 (P<0.1), and 0.109 (P<0.01), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that good or fair quality supporting evidence is a strong predictor of positive coverage. Availability of alternative interventions, more recent decisions, and lack of an associated estimate of cost-effectiveness are associated with a decreased likelihood of positive coverage. The findings highlight Medicare's move to evidence-based coverage decisions, and suggest that coverage decisions are influenced by the availability of cost-effectiveness evidence.

Does responsibility affect the public's valuation of health care interventions? A relative valuation approach to health care safety.

OBJECTIVE: Health services often spend more on safety interventions than seems cost-effective. This study investigates whether the public value safety-related health care improvements more highly than the same improvements in contexts where the health care system is not responsible. METHOD: An online survey was conducted to elicit the relative importance placed on preventing harms caused by 1) health care (hospital-acquired infections, drug administration errors, injuries to health care staff), 2) individuals (personal lifestyle choices, sports-related injuries), and 3) nature (genetic disorders). Direct valuations were obtained from members of the public by using a person trade-off or "matching" method. Participants were asked to choose between two preventative interventions of equal cost and equal health benefit per person for the same number of people, but differing in causation. If participants indicated a preference, their strength of preference was measured by using person trade-off. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 1030 people, reflecting the sociodemographic mix of the UK population. Participants valued interventions preventing hospital-acquired infections (1.31) more highly than genetic disorders (1.0), although drug errors were valued similarly to genetic disorders (1.07), and interventions to prevent injury to health care staff were given less weight than genetic disorders (0.71). Less weight was also given to interventions related to lifestyle (0.65) and sports injuries (0.41). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that people do not attach a simple fixed premium to "safety-related" interventions but that preferences depend more subtly on context. The use of the results of such public preference surveys to directly inform policy would therefore be premature.

Bayesian meta-analysis on medical devices: application to implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe and illustrate a method to obtain early estimates of the effectiveness of a new version of a medical device. METHODS: In the absence of empirical data, expert opinion may be elicited on the expected difference between the conventional and modified devices. Bayesian Mixed Treatment Comparison (MTC) meta-analysis can then be used to combine this expert opinion with existing trial data on earlier versions of the device. We illustrate this approach for a new four-pole implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) compared with conventional ICDs, Class III anti-arrhythmic drugs, and conventional drug therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in high risk patients. Existing RCTs were identified from a published systematic review, and we elicited opinion on the difference between four-pole and conventional ICDs from experts recruited at a cardiology conference. RESULTS: Twelve randomized controlled trials were identified. Seven experts provided valid probability distributions for the new ICDs compared with current devices. The MTC model resulted in estimated relative risks of mortality of 0.74 (0.60-0.89) (predictive relative risk [RR] = 0.77 [0.41-1.26]) and 0.83 (0.70-0.97) (predictive RR = 0.84 [0.55-1.22]) with the new ICD therapy compared to Class III anti-arrhythmic drug therapy and conventional drug therapy, respectively. These results showed negligible differences from the preliminary results for the existing ICDs. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method incorporating expert opinion to adjust for a modification made to an existing device may play a useful role in assisting decision makers to make early informed judgments on the effectiveness of frequently modified healthcare technologies.

Allocating Public Spending Efficiently: Is There a Need for a Better Mechanism to Inform Decisions in the UK and Elsewhere?

In the UK few if any regular processes explicitly address comparisons of value for money between spending in different government departments, despite the existence of mechanisms that could in principle achieve that. This leaves a very important gap in evidence and means that decisions about public spending allocations are likely to miss opportunities to improve social welfare from existing budgets. Greater attention to the development of methods and evidence to better inform the allocation of public sector spending between departments is therefore urgently needed. We identify a number of possible approaches to this-some of which are being used in different countries-and highlight their strengths and weaknesses. We propose a new, pragmatic approach that incorporates a generic descriptive system to measure the disparate outcomes produced by public sector activities in a commensurate manner. Discrete-choice experiments could be used to generate evidence of the relative importance placed on different aspects of public sector outcomes by members of the general public. The proposed approach would produce evidence on value for money across departments, and the generation of evidence on public preferences to support that.

Mapping of the EQ-5D index from clinical outcome measures and demographic variables in patients with coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: The EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D) is a questionnaire that provides a measure of utility for cost-effectiveness analysis. The EQ-5D has been widely used in many patient groups, including those with coronary heart disease. Studies often require patients to complete many questionnaires and the EQ-5D may not be gathered. This study aimed to assess whether demographic and clinical outcome variables, including scores from a disease specific measure, the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), could be used to predict, or map, the EQ-5D index value where it is not available. METHODS: Patient-level data from 5 studies of cardiac interventions were used. The data were split into two groups - approximately 60% of the data were used as an estimation dataset for building models, and 40% were used as a validation dataset. Forward ordinary least squares linear regression methods and measures of prediction error were used to build a model to map to the EQ-5D index. Age, sex, a proxy measure of disease stage, Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina severity class, treadmill exercise time (ETT) and scales of the SAQ were examined. RESULTS: The exertional capacity (ECS), disease perception (DPS) and anginal frequency scales (AFS) of the SAQ were the strongest predictors of the EQ-5D index and gave the smallest root mean square errors. A final model was chosen with age, gender, disease stage and the ECS, DPS and AFS scales of the SAQ. ETT and CCS did not improve prediction in the presence of the SAQ scales. Bland-Altman agreement between predicted and observed EQ-5D index values was reasonable for values greater than 0.4, but below this level predicted values were higher than observed. The 95% limits of agreement were wide (-0.34, 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Mapping of the EQ-5D index in cardiac patients from demographics and commonly measured cardiac outcome variables is possible; however, prediction for values of the EQ-5D index below 0.4 was not accurate. The newly designed 5-level version of the EQ-5D with its increased ability to discriminate health states may improve prediction of EQ-5D index values.

A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: The EQ-5D has been extensively used to assess patient utility in trials of new treatments within the cardiovascular field. The aims of this study were to review evidence of the validity and reliability of the EQ-5D, and to summarise utility scores based on the use of the EQ-5D in clinical trials and in studies of patients with cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A structured literature search was conducted using keywords related to cardiovascular disease and EQ-5D. Original research studies of patients with cardiovascular disease that reported EQ-5D results and its measurement properties were included. RESULTS: Of 147 identified papers, 66 met the selection criteria, with 10 studies reporting evidence on validity or reliability and 60 reporting EQ-5D responses (VAS or self-classification). Mean EQ-5D index-based scores ranged from 0.24 (SD 0.39) to 0.90 (SD 0.16), while VAS scores ranged from 37 (SD 21) to 89 (no SD reported). Stratification of EQ-5D index scores by disease severity revealed that scores decreased from a mean of 0.78 (SD 0.18) to 0.51 (SD 0.21) for mild to severe disease in heart failure patients and from 0.80 (SD 0.05) to 0.45 (SD 0.22) for mild to severe disease in angina patients. CONCLUSIONS: The published evidence generally supports the validity and reliability of the EQ-5D as an outcome measure within the cardiovascular area. This review provides utility estimates across a range of cardiovascular subgroups and treatments that may be useful for future modelling of utilities and QALYs in economic evaluations within the cardiovascular area.

The lifetime cost effectiveness of amlodipine-based therapy plus atorvastatin compared with atenolol plus atorvastatin, amlodipine-based therapy alone and atenolol-based therapy alone: results from ASCOT1.

BACKGROUND: ASCOT (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial) showed in hypertensive patients that blood pressure-lowering treatment with an amlodipine-based regimen reduces events compared with an atenolol-based regimen and that atorvastatin was more effective than placebo. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of four alternative treatment strategies in patients with hypertension and three or more cardiovascular risk factors in the UK (from the UK NHS perspective) or Sweden (from the societal perspective): amlodipine-based plus atorvastatin, atenolol-based plus atorvastatin, amlodipine-based alone and atenolol-based alone. METHODS: Based on the trial data, a Markov model was constructed where the risk of myocardial infarction, revascularization procedures and stroke and the long-term costs, quality of life and mortality associated with these events were estimated. Transition probabilities and costs (euro, 2007 values) were based on the patient-level trial data. Outcomes were reported as life-years gained and QALYs. In the latter case, utility reduction from events was based on a substudy in ASCOT patients. Treatment was applied for the duration of the lipid-lowering arm of the trial (3 years) and patients were then followed to the end of their life. RESULTS: Amlodipine-based therapy plus atorvastatin was the most expensive but also most effective treatment. Compared with amlodipine-based therapy alone, the cost to gain one QALY was euro 11,965 in the UK and euro 8,591 in Sweden. The incremental cost effectiveness of amlodipine-based therapy compared with atenolol-based therapy was euro 9,548 and euro 3,965 per QALY gained in the UK and Sweden, respectively. Atenolol-based therapy plus atorvastatin was eliminated through extended dominance. Applying the threshold values used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, a combination of amlodipine-based therapy and atorvastatin appears to be cost effective in patients with hypertension and three or more additional risk factors.

Relationship between the EQ-5D index and measures of clinical outcomes in selected studies of cardiovascular interventions.

BACKGROUND: The EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D) has been widely used in studies of cardiac disease, but its measurement properties in this group are not well established. The study aimed to quantify the relationship between measures commonly used in studies of cardiac disease and the EQ-5D index across different levels of disease severity. METHODS: Patient-level data from 7 studies of cardiac interventions were used, which included randomised trials and observational studies. Relationships between the EQ-5D index and commonly used cardiac measures, Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina severity class, treadmill exercise time (ETT) and scales of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) were examined. Mixed effects linear regression was used to assess these relationships, with the EQ-5D index as the response. RESULTS: Study sample sizes ranged from 68 to 2419. Mean baseline EQ-5D index ranged from 0.77 in patients at diagnosis (95% CI 0.75, 0.78) to 0.43 in patients with advanced disease (95% CI 0.39, 0.48) and differed significantly across studies (p < 0.001). There was evidence of a ceiling effect in patients at diagnosis. The minimum clinically important difference of a one minute increase in ETT was associated with a 0.019 (95% CI 0.014, 0.025) increase in EQ-5D index. One class increase in CCS was associated with a 0.11 (95% CI 0.09, 0.13) decrease in EQ-5D index. A 10 unit increase in SAQ scales was associated with increases between 0.04 and 0.07 in EQ-5D index (95% CIs 0.03, 0.05 and 0.05, 0.08). Tests of heterogeneity indicated the EQ-5D-covariate relationships were consistent across levels of disease severity for ETT and the treatment satisfaction scale of the SAQ, but heterogeneous for age, gender, CCS angina class and other scales of the SAQ. CONCLUSION: The EQ-5D index varies with coronary disease severity. The relationship between the EQ-5D index and an outcome measure used in cardiac intervention studies, ETT, was consistent across disease severity levels, but the relationship between demographic variables, CCS angina class and most of the SAQ scales and the EQ-5D index was heterogeneous for patients with different levels of coronary disease. Differences in the EQ-5D index associated with clinically important differences in cardiac measures can be quantified and vary between three important examples - angina class, ETT and SAQ.

Analysing uncertainty around costs of innovative medical technologies: the case of fibrin sealant (QUIXIL) for total knee replacement.

This paper presents a relatively simple cost model comparing the costs of using a commercial fibrin sealant (QUIXIL) in addition to conventional haemostatic treatment vs. conventional treatment alone in total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, and demonstrates and discusses how one- and two-way sensitivity analyses can inform decisions regarding an innovative medical technology, for which there is limited evidence on economic parameters. The model synthesises data from various sources and assesses the proportion of individuals likely to need blood transfusion, the resource use after TKR and transfusion-related adverse events. Whether using fibrin sealant is cost saving strongly depends on the amount used, the achieved reduction in hospital length of stay (LOS) and price of QUIXIL. If a 10-ml dose of fibrin sealant is required to achieve the effects as described in the published trials, its use adds cost, but if 25% or more of patients are treated with a 5-ml dose, its use becomes cost saving for the NHS. The sensitivity analyses provide clear guidance regarding parameters for additional data collection; design of future trials; and product pricing in relation to its effectiveness, and are likely to be preferred over more sophisticated approaches to inform medical device decision-making, particularly at the local level.

Searching for cost effectiveness thresholds in the NHS.

OBJECTIVES: The UK's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has an explicit cost-effectiveness threshold for deciding whether or not services are to be provided in the National Health Service (NHS), but there is currently little evidence to support the level at which it is set. This study examines whether it is possible to obtain such evidence by examining decision making elsewhere in the NHS. Its objectives are to set out a conceptual model linking NICE decision making based on explicit thresholds with the thresholds implicit in local decision making and to gauge the feasibility of (a) identifying those implicit local cost effectiveness thresholds and (b) using these to gauge the appropriateness of NICE's explicit threshold. METHODS: Structured interviews with senior staff, together with financial and public health information, from six NHS purchasers and 18 providers. A list of health care services introduced or discontinued in 2006/7 was constructed. Those that were in principle amenable to estimation of a cost-effectiveness ratio were examined. RESULTS: It was feasible to identify decisions and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of some. These were not necessarily 'marginal' services. Issues include: services that are dominated (or dominate); decisions about how, rather than what, services should be delivered; the lack of local cost effectiveness evidence; and considerations other than cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive finding about the consistency or otherwise of NICE and NHS cost effectiveness thresholds would require very many decisions to be observed, combined with a detailed understanding of the local decision making processes.

Transferability of economic evaluations of medical technologies: a new technology for orthopedic surgery.

Transferring results of economic evaluations across countries or jurisdictions can potentially save scarce evaluation resources while helping to make market access and reimbursement decisions in a timely fashion. This article points out why transferring results of economic evaluations is particularly important in the field of medical technologies. It then provides an overview of factors that are previously identified in the literature as affecting transferability of economic evaluations, as well as methods for transferring results in a scientifically sound way. As the current literature almost exclusively relates to transferability of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, this article highlights those factors and methodologies that are of particular relevance to transferring medical technology assessments. Considering the state-of-the-art literature and a worked, real life, example of transferring an economic evaluation of a product used in orthopedic surgery, we provide recommendations for future work in this important area of medical technology assessment.

[Developing and applying the Payback Framework to assess the socioeconomic impact of health research]. / Desarrollo y aplicación del Modelo Payback para la evaluación del impacto socioeconómico de la investigación en salud.

There is increasing pressure for assessments of the wider socioeconomic impacts of health research. Governments are making greater demands to justify the expenditure of public money. However, there is also a belief that assessing how the wider effects or benefits of health research arise should help to inform the management and organization of health research so as to increase future impacts. Since the mid- 1990s, Buxton and Hanney at the Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University, have been developing and applying the Payback Framework to assess the impacts of health research. Together with their colleagues, these researchers have applied this model in a series of studies to assess the payback from research programs in various fields (including diabetes, arthritis and cardiovascular disease) and in various countries (including the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Ireland, Australia and Canada). Other teams of researchers have applied the Payback Framework in, for example, Spain and Hong Kong. The Payback Framework consists of two elements, the first being the multi-dimensional categorization of the benefits of health research, which covers five main categories ranging from traditional knowledge production and research training and targeting, to impacts on policy and product development through to health and economic gains. The second element is a logic model of how best to assess these impacts. Application of this framework can be resource intensive, but has provided illustrative 'good news' stories on the payback resulting from research and has helped to inform research management.

The role of the national general medical journal: surveys of which journals UK clinicians read to inform their clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: For biomedical research findings to contribute toward health gains they must reach clinicians. Academic journals have historically been considered important information sources. Birken and Parkin found seven journals to most consistently contain the best pediatric evidence and, of these seven, four were general medical journals. METHODS: We surveyed clinicians in three UK medical specialties (psychiatry, surgery and pediatrics), asking which journals they read and which they considered important to inform their clinical practice. RESULTS: The readership of general medical journals, in comparison to specialty and sub-specialty journals, is widespread across the three UK medical specialties, although the importance of general medical journals varies widely. The BMJ is the most prominent general medical journal in terms of readership and importance but a dominant specialty or sub-specialty journal was usually more important for most groups. The Lancet is less widely read and less important, although more academics than non-academics consider it important. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, key general medical journals play an important role. Journal availability and cost, particularly in relation to membership for UK clinicians, and the position of academics and non-academics have to be considered in any analysis. Three of the four general medical journals containing the best pediatric evidence were found to be widely read by UK pediatricians and two UK-based general medical journals, the BMJ and The Lancet, were also considered important in our survey. Further investigation of the reasons for the importance of a journal and studies that would allow international comparisons would provide greater input to the discussion.

Economic returns to medical research funding.

Following the publication of the final paper in a planned series of four studies estimating the economic returns from biomedical and health research, we reflect on what we have learnt from these types of assessment.

The information sources and journals consulted or read by UK paediatricians to inform their clinical practice and those which they consider important: a questionnaire survey.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of health research findings is important for medicine to be evidence-based. Previous studies have found variation in the information sources thought to be of greatest importance to clinicians but publication in peer-reviewed journals is the traditional route for dissemination of research findings. There is debate about whether the impact made on clinicians should be considered as part of the evaluation of research outputs. We aimed to determine first which information sources are generally most consulted by paediatricians to inform their clinical practice, and which sources they considered most important, and second, how many and which peer-reviewed journals they read. METHODS: We inquired, by questionnaire survey, about the information sources and academic journals that UK medical paediatric specialists generally consulted, attended or read and considered important to their clinical practice. RESULTS: The same three information sources--professional meetings & conferences, peer-reviewed journals and medical colleagues--were, overall, the most consulted or attended and ranked the most important. No one information source was found to be of greatest importance to all groups of paediatricians. Journals were widely read by all groups, but the proportion ranking them first in importance as an information source ranged from 10% to 46%. The number of journals read varied between the groups, but Archives of Disease in Childhood and BMJ were the most read journals in all groups. Six out of the seven journals previously identified as containing best paediatric evidence are the most widely read overall by UK paediatricians, however, only the two most prominent are widely read by those based in the community. CONCLUSION: No one information source is dominant, therefore a variety of approaches to Continuing Professional Development and the dissemination of research findings to paediatricians should be used. Journals are an important information source. A small number of key ones can be identified and such analysis could provide valuable additional input into the evaluation of clinical research outputs.