Development of a cost of illness inventory questionnaire for children with autism spectrum disorder in South Asia.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of autism is substantial and includes a range of costs, including healthcare, education, productivity losses, informal care and respite care, among others. In India, approximately, 2 million children aged 2-9 years have autism. Given the likely substantial burden of illness and the need to identify effective and cost-effective interventions, this research aimed to produce a comprehensive cost of illness inventory (COII) suitable for children with autism in South Asia (India) to support future research. METHODS: A structured and iterative design process was followed to create the COII, including literature reviews, interviews with caregivers, pilot testing and translation. Across the development of the COII, thirty-two families were involved in the design and piloting of the tool. The COII was forward translated (from English to Hindi) and back translated. Each stage of the process of development of the COII resulted in the further refinement of the tool. RESULTS: Domains covered in the final COII include education, childcare, relocation, healthcare contacts (outpatient, inpatient, medical emergencies, investigations and medication), religious retreats and rituals, specialist equipment, workshops and training, special diet, support and care, certification, occupational adjustments and government rebates/schemes. Administration and completion of the COII determined it to be feasible to complete in 35 minutes by qualified and trained researchers. The final COII is hosted by REDCap Cloud and is a bilingual instrument (Hindi and English). CONCLUSIONS: The COII was developed using experiences gathered from an iterative process in a metropolitan area within the context of one low- and middle-income country (LMIC) setting, India. Compared to COII tools used for children with autism in high-income country settings, additional domains were required, such as complimentary medication (e.g. religious retreats and homeopathy). The COII will allow future research to quantify the cost of illness of autism in India from a broad perspective and will support relevant economic evaluations. Understanding the process of developing the questionnaire will help researchers working in LMICs needing to adapt the current COII or developing similar questionnaires.

Promoting health economic evaluation studies in the AYUSH system of medicine: the need of the hour.

The double burden of communicable and noncommunicable diseases is a major threat to the Indian public health system. AYUSH, an acronym for Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa-Rigpa, and Homeopathy, represents the Indian system of medicine recognized by the Government of India. Mainstreaming of AYUSH is one of the key strategies of the Indian government for tackling increasing disease burden through initiatives such as AYUSH wellness centers, telemedicine, and quality control measures for medications in the AYUSH system of medicine. Such investment of resources in health systems may require economic evaluations. However, such evaluations are lacking in the AYUSH system, except for a few in homeopathy and yoga. In the absence of evidence from economic evaluations, researchers and decision makers are guided mostly by clinical efficacy while formulating healthcare strategies. In view of the increasing use of AYUSH across the country, economic evaluations of the AYUSH system are the need of the hour to aid healthcare decision making.

Overview and quality assessment of health economic evaluations for homeopathic therapy: an updated systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Likewise other medical interventions, economic evaluations of homeopathy contribute to the evidence base of therapeutic concepts and are needed for socioeconomic decision-making. A 2013 review was updated and extended to gain a current overview. METHODS: A systematic literature search of the terms 'cost' and 'homeopathy' from January 2012 to July 2022 was performed in electronic databases. Two independent reviewers checked records, extracted data, and assessed study quality using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. RESULTS: Six studies were added to 15 from the previous review. Synthesizing both health outcomes and costs showed homeopathic treatment being at least equally effective for less or similar costs than control in 14 of 21 studies. Three found improved outcomes at higher costs, two of which showed cost-effectiveness for homeopathy by incremental analysis. One found similar results and three similar outcomes at higher costs for homeopathy. CHEC values ranged between two and 16, with studies before 2009 having lower values (Mean ± SD: 6.7 ± 3.4) than newer studies (9.4 ± 4.3). CONCLUSION: Although results of the CHEC assessment show a positive chronological development, the favorable cost-effectiveness of homeopathic treatments seen in a small number of high-quality studies is undercut by too many examples of methodologically poor research.

To help make decisions about homeopathy in healthcare, it is important, as with other medical treatments, to look at whether this treatment is effective in relation to its costs; in other words, to see if it is cost-effective. The aim of the current work was to update the picture of scientific studies available on this topic until 2012. To this purpose, two different researchers screened electronic literature databases for studies between January 2012 and July 2022 which assessed both the costs and the effects of a homeopathic treatment. They did this according to strict rules to make sure that no important study was missed. They reviewed the search results, gathered information from the studies, and assessed the quality of the studies using a set of criteria. They detected six additional new studies to the 15 already known from the previous work. Overall, they found that in 14 out of 21 studies, homeopathic treatment was at least equally effective for less or similar costs. For the remaining seven studies, costs were equal or higher for homeopathy. Of these seven, two were shown to be advantageous for homeopathy: indeed, specific economic analyses demonstrated that the benefit of the homeopathic treatment compensated for the higher costs. For the remaining five studies, the higher or equal costs of homeopathic treatment were not compensated by a better effect. The quality of the studies varied, with older studies generally being of lower quality compared to newer ones. The authors concluded that although the quality of research on homeopathy's cost-effectiveness has improved over time, and some high-quality studies show that it can be a cost-effective option, there are still many poorly conducted studies which make it difficult to offer a definitive statement. In other words, while there is some evidence that homeopathy can be effective in relation to its costs, there are still many studies that are not very reliable, which means that interested parties need to be cautious about drawing conclusions.