Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Mais filtros

Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
J. bras. econ. saúde (Impr.) ; 13(1): 31-42, Abril/2021.
Artigo em Português | LILACS, ECOS | ID: biblio-1252695


Objetivo: Descrever e analisar criticamente as avaliações econômicas de medicamentos antineoplásicos submetidas à Agência Nacional de Saúde Suplementar (ANS) durante o processo de atualização do rol de procedimentos em saúde 2020. Métodos: Estudo transversal de análise crítica dos estudos de avaliação econômica integrantes da documentação submetida à ANS com o objetivo de incorporação no rol de procedimentos. A avaliação da qualidade metodológica foi realizada por meio da ferramenta Methodology Checklist 6: Economic Evaluations Version 3.0 da Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Resultados: Foram incluídas 49 avaliações econômicas: 22 estudos de custo-efetividade, 10 estudos de custo-utilidade, três estudos de custo-minimização e 14 estudos de custo-efetividade e custo-utilidade. A qualidade metodológica foi considerada, na maior parte (88%), como aceitável ou de baixa qualidade. Conclusão: Estudos de avaliação econômica são fundamentais no processo decisório de incorporação de tecnologias na saúde suplementar. Esta análise crítica sugere que a qualidade dos estudos econômicos apresentados dentro das propostas de incorporação de antineoplásicos durante o processo de atualização do rol 2020 da ANS foi limitada. Inconsistências metodológicas e falta de um relato transparente reduzem a validade e a aplicabilidade dos achados na tomada de decisão.

Objective: To describe and critically appraise the economic evaluations of antineoplastic drugs submitted to the ANS during the process of updating its 2020' list of procedures. Methods: Cross-sectional study of critical analysis of the economic evaluation studies included in the documentation submitted to the ANS with the aim of incorporating them into the list of procedures. The methodological quality assessment was carried out using the Methodology Checklist 6: Economic Evaluations Version 3.0 of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Results: Overall, 49 economic evaluations were included: 22 cost-effectiveness studies, 10 cost-utility studies, three cost-minimization studies and 14 mixed economic studies. Methodological quality was mostly considered as acceptable or low quality. Conclusion: Economic evaluation studies are fundamental in the decision-making process of incorporating technologies into supplementary health care. This critical appraisal suggests that the quality of the economic studies presented within the proposals to incorporate antineoplastics during the process of updating the ANS 2020 roll was limited. Methodological inconsistencies and lack of transparent reporting reduce the validity and applicability of findings for decision-making

Tomada de Decisões , Economia e Organizações de Saúde , Avaliação de Custo-Efetividade , Neoplasias , Antineoplásicos
JCO Glob Oncol ; 7: 342-352, 2021 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33656910


PURPOSE: Delays and disruptions in health systems because of the COVID-19 pandemic were identified by a previous systematic review from our group. For improving the knowledge about the pandemic consequences for cancer care, this article aims to identify the effects of mitigation strategies developed to reduce the impact of such delays and disruptions. METHODS: Systematic review with a comprehensive search including formal databases, cancer and COVID-19 data sources, gray literature, and manual search. We considered clinical trials, observational longitudinal studies, cross-sectional studies, before-and-after studies, case series, and case studies. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by specific tools. The mitigation strategies identified were described in detail and their effects were summarized narratively. RESULTS: Of 6,692 references reviewed, 28 were deemed eligible, and 9 studies with low to moderate methodological quality were included. Five multiple strategies and four single strategies were reported, and the possible effects of mitigating delays and disruptions in cancer care because of COVID-19 are inconsistent. The only comparative study reported a 48.7% reduction observed in the number of outpatient visits to the hospital accompanied by a small reduction in imaging and an improvement in radiation treatments after the implementation of a multiple organizational strategy. CONCLUSION: The findings emphasize the infrequency of measuring and reporting mitigation strategies that specifically address patients' outcomes and thus a scarcity of high-quality evidence to inform program development. This review reinforces the need of adopting standardized measurement methods to monitor the impact of the mitigation strategies proposed to reduce the effects of delays and disruptions in cancer health care because of COVID-19.

COVID-19/epidemiologia , Institutos de Câncer , Disparidades nos Níveis de Saúde , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde , Oncologia/tendências , Neoplasias/terapia , Estudos Transversais , Tomada de Decisões , Humanos , Oncologia/organização & administração , Modelos Organizacionais , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Pandemias , Tempo para o Tratamento
JCO Glob Oncol ; 7: 311-323, 2021 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33617304


PURPOSE: There has been noteworthy concern about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health services including the management of cancer. In addition to being considered at higher risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, people with cancer may also experience disruptions or delays in health services. This systematic review aimed to identify the delays and disruptions to cancer services globally. METHODS: This is a systematic review with a comprehensive search including specific and general databases. We considered any observational longitudinal and cross-sectional study design. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by specific tools. The delays and disruptions identified were categorized, and their frequency was presented. RESULTS: Among the 62 studies identified, none exhibited high methodological quality. The most frequent determinants for disruptions were provider- or system-related, mainly because of the reduction in service availability. The studies identified 38 different categories of delays and disruptions with impact on treatment, diagnosis, or general health service. Delays or disruptions most investigated included reduction in routine activity of cancer services and number of cancer surgeries; delay in radiotherapy; and delay, reschedule, or cancellation of outpatient visits. Interruptions and disruptions largely affected facilities (up to 77.5%), supply chain (up to 79%), and personnel availability (up to 60%). CONCLUSION: The remarkable frequency of delays and disruptions in health care mostly related to the reduction of the COVID-19 burden unintentionally posed a major risk on cancer care worldwide. Strategies can be proposed not only to mitigate the main delays and disruptions but also to standardize their measurement and reporting. As a high number of publications continuously are being published, it is critical to harmonize the upcoming reports and constantly update this review.

COVID-19 , Atenção à Saúde/métodos , Neoplasias/terapia , Assistência Ambulatorial , Estudos Transversais , Atenção à Saúde/organização & administração , Atenção à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Neoplasias/radioterapia , Neoplasias/cirurgia