Health policy analysis in Eastern Mediterranean region using a health policy triangle framework: Historical and ethical insights from a systematic review.

Background: Health policy can be defined as an agreement and consensus on a health-related program and set of actions taken to achieve the goals expected by programs in the area of policy. Policy analysis involves a wide range of methods, techniques, and tools in a way to reach awareness of the impacts of the developed and implemented policies. Whereas policy analysis in developed countries has a long history, in developing countries, it is instead in its first developing stages. Our paper aimed to collect systematically the studies using health policy triangle framework in doing analysis in one of the health policy issues in the Eastern Mediterranean region organization. Methods: To conduct our literature search, ISI/Web of Science, PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Global Health Database, Scopus, as well as Google Scholar from 2003 up to June 2020 were systematically mined. To evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies, the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist was used. Results: We selected 30 studies, conducted between 2011 and 2020. According to the findings of these studies, in the Eastern Mediterranean region, organization region, and the role of evidence-based research in policy-making has been repeatedly emphasized, but its use in health program decision-making has been limited, and health research systems in Eastern Mediterranean region organization are still under scrutiny. There is still a gap between evidence-based research in health systems and its use in policy-making. Discussion: Based on the present systematic review, studies based on policy analysis should focus on all the elements of health policies and provide evidence to inform decisions that can strengthen health systems, improve health and improve existing inequalities.

Cost-effectiveness of allopurinol versus febuxostat in the treatment of gout patients: A systematic review.

Background: In recent years, increased longevity, poor dietary habits, and the rising prevalence of metabolic syndrome and hypertension have increased the prevalence of gout. Gout significantly increases direct and indirect costs and reduces the quality of life. Allopurinol and febuxostat are the most commonly used drugs for reducing uric acid levels and controlling this disease with different cost-effectiveness. The present systematic review compares the cost-effectiveness of these drugs. Methods: This was a systematic review of economic evaluations. Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry were searched up to April 30, 2018, based on the specific search strategy of each database. Keywords used in the search include gout, cost-effectiveness, allopurinol, and febuxostat in MeSH and free-text forms. Screening of identified studies, data extraction, and quality assessment were done independently by 2 reviewers. The quality of studies was assessed based on Drummond Checklist. Finally, a qualitative analysis was done to analyze the results. Results: A total of 94 studies were identified through database search and the review of references. After screening the titles, abstracts, and full-texts, 6 economic evaluations were included in the review. The majority of the studies had been conducted in the US using the Markov model, within a 5-year horizon, and from the payer's perspective, with the quality of life as a measure of effectiveness. In most studies, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of febuxostat per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) were below the threshold (10 000$/QALY and 30 000€/QALY). Conclusion: Febuxostat has been shown to be more cost-effective than allopurinol in all treatment sequences in studies that have used uric acid levels as the measure of effectiveness. Furthermore, in studies with the quality of life as the measure of effectiveness, febuxostat has been shown to be very cost-effective as the second-line treatment.

Identifying and classifying indicators affected by performing clinical pathways in hospitals: a scoping review.

AIM: To analyse the evidence regarding indicators affected by clinical pathways (CPW) in hospitals and offer suggestions for conducting comprehensive systematic reviews. METHODS: We conducted a systematic scoping review and searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Scopus, OVID, Science Direct, ProQuest, EMBASE and PubMed. We also reviewed the reference lists of included studies. The criteria for inclusion of studies included experimental and quasi-experimental studies, implementing CPW in secondary and tertiary hospitals and investigating at least one indicator. Quality of included studies was assessed by two authors independently using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program for clinical trials and cohort studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for Quasi-Experimental Studies. RESULTS: Forty-seven out of 2191 studies met the eligibility and inclusion criteria. The majority of included studies had pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design and had been done in developed countries, especially the United States. The investigation of evidence resulted in identifying 62 indicators which were classified into three categories: input indicators, process and output indicators and outcome indicators. Outcome indicators were more frequent than other indicators. Complication rate, hospital costs and length of hospital stay were dominant in their own category. Indicators such as quality of life and adherence to guidelines have been considered in studies that were done in recent years. CONCLUSION: Implementing CPW can affect different types of indicators such as input, process, output and outcome indicators, although outcome indicators capture more attention than other indicators. Patient-related indicators were dominant outcome indicators, whereas professional indicators and organizational factors were considered less extensively. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC?: WHAT DOES THIS ARTICLE ADD?