Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 7.603
Filtrar
1.
BJOG ; 129(3): 336-344, 2022 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35014160

RESUMO

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.


Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício/normas , Economia Médica/normas , Projetos de Pesquisa/normas , Lista de Checagem , Guias como Assunto , Humanos
5.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 21(1): 947, 2021 Sep 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34503507

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Rare diseases are difficult to diagnose. Due to their rarity, heterogeneity, and variability, rare diseases often result not only in extensive diagnostic tests and imaging studies, but also in unnecessary repetitions of examinations, which places a greater overall burden on the healthcare system. Diagnostic decision support systems (DDSS) optimized by rare disease experts and used early by primary care physicians and specialists are able to significantly shorten diagnostic processes. The objective of this study was to evaluate reductions in diagnostic costs incurred in rare disease cases brought about by rapid referral to an expert and diagnostic decision support systems. METHODS: Retrospectively, diagnostic costs from disease onset to diagnosis were analyzed in 78 patient cases from the outpatient clinic for rare inflammatory systemic diseases at Hannover Medical School. From the onset of the first symptoms, all diagnostic measures related to the disease were taken from the patient files and documented for each day. The basis for the health economic calculations was the Einheitlicher Bewertungsmaßstab (EBM) used in Germany for statutory health insurance, which assigns a fixed flat rate to the various medical services. For 76 cases we also calculated the cost savings that would have been achieved by the diagnosis support system Ada DX applied by an expert. RESULTS: The expert was able to achieve significant savings for patients with long courses of disease. On average, the expert needed only 27 % of the total costs incurred in the individual treatment odysseys to make the correct diagnosis. The expert also needed significantly less time and avoided unnecessary examination repetitions. If a DDSS had been applied early in the 76 cases studied, only 51-68 % of the total costs would have incurred and the diagnosis would have been made earlier. Earlier diagnosis would have significantly reduced costs. CONCLUSION: The study showed that significant savings in the diagnostic process of rare diseases can be achieved through rapid referral to an expert and the use of DDSS. Faster diagnosis not only achieves savings, but also enables the right therapy and thus an increase in the quality of life for patients.


Assuntos
Economia Médica , Qualidade de Vida , Redução de Custos , Alemanha , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos
6.
Front Public Health ; 9: 706366, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34414159

RESUMO

Objectives: This study was aimed to find and appraise the available published pharmacoeconomic research on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), to identify related issues and make suggestions for improvement in future research. Methods: After developing a search strategy and establishing inclusion and exclusion criteria, pharmacoeconomic studies on TCM were sourced from seven Chinese and English databases from inception to April 2020. Basic information about the studies and key pharmacoeconomic items of each study were extracted. The quality of each study was evaluated by using the British Medical Journal economic submissions checklist for authors and peer reviewers, focusing on factors such as study design, research time horizon, sample size, perspective, and evaluation methods. Results: A total of 431 published pharmacoeconomic articles with 434 studies on topics including cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-minimization, cost-utility, or combination analyses were identified and included in this review. Of these, 424 were published in Chinese and 7 in English. These studies conducted economic evaluations of 264 Chinese patent medicines and 70 types of TCM prescriptions for 143 diseases, including those of the central nervous, cardiovascular, respiratory, gynecologyical, and other systems. The studied TCMs included blood-activating agents (such as Xuesaitong tablet, Fufant Danshen tablet, and Danhong Injection), blood circulation promoting agents (such as Shuxuetong injection, Rupixiao tablet, and Fufang Danshen injection), and other therapeutic agents. The overall quality score of the studies was 0.62 (range 0.38 to 0.85). The mean quality score of studies in English was 0.72, which was higher than that of studies in Chinese with 0.62. Conclusions: The quality of pharmacoeconomic studies on TCM was relatively, generally low. Major concerns included study design, inappropriate pharmacoeconomic evaluation, insufficient sample size, or non-scientific assessment. Enhanced methodological training and cooperation, the development of a targeted pharmacoeconomic evaluation guideline, and proposal of a reasonable health outcome index are warranted to improve quality of future studies.


Assuntos
Farmacoeconomia , Medicina Tradicional Chinesa , China , Economia Médica , Projetos de Pesquisa
7.
BMJ Open ; 11(8): e048031, 2021 08 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34429311

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Complex organisational arrangements are required to deliver antenatal and newborn screening programmes. Decision-makers consider the benefits and harms of screening when reviewing the evidence about these programmes. Economic evaluations contribute one important part of this assessment process. However, it is not fully understood what approaches health economic assessments have adopted to measure and value benefits and harms. This study aims to systematically review and critique the published and grey literature on methods for identifying, measuring and valuing the benefits and harms of antenatal and newborn screening adopted by health economic assessments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Nine bibliographic databases will be searched from 2000 onwards. These search strategies will be supplemented by manual reference searching of bibliographies, forward citation searching, contacts with experts, author searching and web searching for grey literature. Studies will be selected for review if they report health economic assessments of an antenatal or newborn screening programme. Assessments of title and abstracts and full reports will be undertaken independently with disagreements resolved through discussion. Data extraction will include fields to assess the reporting quality of the studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and a bespoke ancillary form to assess how benefits and harms have been accounted for. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is an evidence synthesis review from already published materials and hence ethics committee approval or written informed consent will not be required. Our results will be disseminated by publishing in high-impact peer-review journals and presenting at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020165236.


Assuntos
Economia Médica , Triagem Neonatal , Análise Custo-Benefício , Bases de Dados Bibliográficas , Feminino , Literatura Cinzenta , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Gravidez , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto
8.
Health Econ ; 30(9): 2307-2311, 2021 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34216077

RESUMO

In health economics, the distinction between welfarism and extra-welfarism has been employed to discuss various epistemological and normative differences between health evaluation approaches. However, a clear consensus on the definition of either welfarism, extra-welfarism, or the differences between the two sets of approaches has not emerged. I propose an alternative set of distinctions that allows for a more fine-grained categorization of health evaluation approaches. This categorization focuses on five dimensions: (1) the maximand of an evaluation approach, (2) its sensitivity toward normative concerns that defy compensation, (3) its position on which groups of individuals or collective entities act as sources of values, (4) its sensitivity to changes of mind, and (5) the inclusion of process-external values.


Assuntos
Economia Médica , Humanos
10.
Biomed Res Int ; 2021: 6680441, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34307665

RESUMO

Background: The proportion of aging in China is increasing, which needs more healthcare recourses. To analyze the risk factors of the direct medical economic burden of aging in China and provide the strategies to control the cost of treatment, the information was collected based on Guangdong Province's regular health expenditure accounting data collection plan. Methods: The multiple linear regression models were used to explore the risk factors of inpatient expenses of the elderly in Guangdong province. Results: The results revealed that hospital day, age, male patients, and patients who suffer from malignant tumors are key factors to increase the direct medical economic burden of aging. Moreover, the medical insurance for urban employees can reduce the medical economic burden, comparing with the medical insurance for urban residents. Conclusions: The basic medical insurance system and the serious illness insurance system should be improved. While striving to speed up the development of regional economy, the government should pay attention to the construction of basic medical institutions in economically backward areas, increase the allocation of health human resources, and facilitate the masses to seek medical treatment nearby.


Assuntos
Envelhecimento/fisiologia , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Economia Médica , Idoso , China/epidemiologia , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Hospitalização/economia , Humanos , Pacientes Internados , Masculino , Fatores de Risco
11.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 21(1): 738, 2021 Jul 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34304743

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Evidence-informed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are useful tools to inform transparent healthcare decision-making. Consideration of health economic evidence (HEE) during CPG development in a structured manner remains a challenge globally and locally. This study explored the views, current practice, training needs and challenges faced by CPG developers in the production and use of HEE for CPGs in South Africa. METHODS: This mixed-methods study comprised an online survey and a focus group discussion. The survey was piloted and subsequently sent to CPG role players - evidence reviewers, CPG panellists, academics involved with training in relevant disciplines like health economics and public health, implementers and funders. The focus group participants hold strategic roles in CPG development and health economic activities nationally. The survey evaluated mean values, measures of variability, and percentages for Likert scales, while narrative components were thematically analysed. Focus group data were manually coded, thematically analysed and verified. RESULTS: The survey (n = 55 respondents to 245 surveys distributed) and one focus group (n = 5 participants from 10 people invited) occurred between October 2018 and February 2019. We found the most consistent reason why HEE should inform CPG decisions was 'making more efficient use of limited financial resources'. This was explained by numerous context and methodological barriers. Focus groups participants noted that consideration of complex HEE are not achievable without bolstering skills in applying evidence-based medicine principles. Further concerns include lack of clarity of standard methods; inequitable and opaque topic selection across private and public sectors; inadequate skills of CPG panel members to use HEE; and the ability of health economists to communicate results in accessible ways. Overall, in the absence of clarity about process and methods, politics and interests may drive CPG decisions about which interventions to implement. CONCLUSIONS: HEE should ideally be considered in CPG decisions in South Africa. However, this will remain hampered until the CPG community agree on methods and processes for using HEE in CPGs. Focused investment by national government to address the challenges identified by the study is imperative for a better return on investment as National Health Insurance moves forward.


Assuntos
Economia Médica , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Governo Federal , Humanos , Programas Nacionais de Saúde , África do Sul
12.
Pharmacoeconomics ; 39(9): 983-993, 2021 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34169466

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: While the methods for conducting health economics research in general are improving, current guidelines provide limited guidance regarding resource use measurement (RUM). Consequently, a variety of methods exists, yet there is no overview of aspects to consider when deciding on the most appropriate RUM methodology. Therefore, this study aims to (1) identify and categorize existing knowledge regarding aspects of RUM, and (2) develop a framework that provides a comprehensive overview of methodological aspects regarding RUM. METHODS: Relevant articles were identified by enrolling a search string in six databases and handsearching the DIRUM database. Included articles were descriptively reviewed and served as input for a comprehensive framework. Health economics experts were involved during the process to establish the framework's face validity. RESULTS: Forty articles were included in the scoping review. The RUM framework consists of four methodological RUM domains: 'Whom to measure', addressing whom to ask and whom to measure; 'How to measure', addressing the different approaches of measurement; 'How often to measure', addressing recall period and measurement patterns; and 'Additional considerations', which covers additional aspects that are essential for further refining the methodologies for measurement. Evidence retrieved from the scoping review was categorized according to these domains. CONCLUSION: This study clustered the aspects of RUM methodology in health economics into a comprehensive framework. The results may guide health economists in their decision making regarding the selection of appropriate RUM methods and developing instruments for RUM. Furthermore, policy makers may use these findings to review study results from an evidence-based perspective.


Assuntos
Economia Médica , Bases de Dados Factuais , Humanos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
13.
Gesundheitswesen ; 83(5): 324-326, 2021 May.
Artigo em Alemão | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33979881
14.
Pharmacoeconomics ; 39(7): 757-770, 2021 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34013440

RESUMO

The availability and use of tools to guide the choice of modelling technique are not well understood. Our study aims to review existing tools and explore the use of those tools in health economic models. Two reviews and one case study were conducted. Review 1 aimed to identify tools based on expert opinion and citation searching and explore the value of the tools for health economic models. Review 2, based on citation searching, aimed to describe how those tools have been used in health economic models. Both reviews were conducted using Web of Science and Scopus. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion. A case study, focused on economic evaluations of antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia, was conducted to compare the modelling techniques used by existing models with modelling techniques recommended by identified tools. Seven tools were identified, of which the revised Brennan's toolkit, was assessed to be the most appropriate for health economic models. The seven tools were cited 126 times in publications reporting health economic models. Only 17 of these (13.5%) reported that they used the tool(s) to guide the choice of modelling technique. Application of these tools suggested discrete event simulation is most appropriate for modelling antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia, but discrete event simulation was only used by 17% of existing models. There is considerable inconsistency between the modelling techniques used by existing models and modelling techniques recommended by tools. It is recommended that for future modelling studies the choice of modelling technique should be justified, this can be achieved by the application of model selection tools, such as the revised Brennan's toolkit. Future research is required to explore the barriers to using model selection tools in health economic models and to update existing tools and make them easier to use.


Assuntos
Antipsicóticos , Esquizofrenia , Antipsicóticos/uso terapêutico , Análise Custo-Benefício , Economia Médica , Humanos , Modelos Econômicos , Esquizofrenia/tratamento farmacológico
15.
Health Res Policy Syst ; 19(1): 71, 2021 May 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33933093

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The number of published economic evaluations of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries is notably scarce. Limited local evidence could have a major impact on the implementation of economic evaluation recommendations in the decision-making process in GCC countries. Little is known about the factors affecting researchers who seek to conduct economic evaluations. Therefore, we aimed to assess researcher barriers and facilitators in conducting such studies of GCC countries. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of health economic researchers working in GCC countries was conducted online between January and February 2020. The survey instrument collected researchers' perceived barriers and facilitators and demographic information. For barriers, respondents rated their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". For facilitators, respondents rated the importance of each facilitator on a six-point scale ranging from "extremely important" to "not very important". Then, participants were asked to select the three most important barriers and facilitators from the lists. The data collected were examined using descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-one researchers completed the survey (37% response rate). The majority of participants (more than 80%) agreed that lack of quality of effectiveness data and restricted access to unit cost data are the main barriers to conducting economic research. Availability of relevant local data was reported as an important facilitator, followed by collaboration between health economic researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide an exploratory view of the issues faced by health economics researchers in GCC countries. Recommendations to GCC countries based on international experiences, such as to use real-world data in economic evaluation research, were provided.


Assuntos
Economia Médica , Pesquisadores , Análise Custo-Benefício , Estudos Transversais , Humanos , Inquéritos e Questionários
17.
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res ; 21(5): 877-884, 2021 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34024232

RESUMO

Introduction: Economic evaluations are widely used tools that greatly contribute to evidence-based health policy and decision-making. However, economic evidence is not commonly used in the countries of the World Health Organization Eastern Mediterranean Region.Areas covered: The aim of this scoping review is to map the existing literature of health economic evaluation studies in the countries of the World Health Organization Eastern Mediterranean Region. Also, the review aims to identify the research gaps in the field of health economic evaluation in the region and finally provide recommendations for research and policy making. We searched six electronic databases. Six items were extracted from each of the included studies: first author, publication year, country of the study, study type, health technology assessed, and perspective.Expert opinion: The quality and quantity of HEE studies should be improved in the region. There is a need to follow evidence-based methodological rigor to aid in informed health-care decision-making and efficient use of health-care resources.


Assuntos
Atenção à Saúde/economia , Economia Médica , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/métodos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Tomada de Decisões , Política de Saúde , Humanos , Região do Mediterrâneo , Formulação de Políticas , Organização Mundial da Saúde
18.
Pharmacoeconomics ; 39(7): 823-833, 2021 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33959937

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patient involvement in health economics modeling has been advocated on numerous grounds, including as a way to better manage social and ethical value judgments in the modeling process. However, some have pointed to potential risks and variables that could influence the overall benefit of involvement. To inform future research, there is a need to generate knowledge on potential benefits, harms, and variables relevant to patient involvement in health economics modeling. METHODS: This analysis used data from a qualitative study in which 22 health economists were asked their views on the possibility of involving patients in the modeling process. Using qualitative methods, the authors organized participants' responses into theory-driven categories ("potential benefits", "potential harms", "variables of interest") and identified data-driven themes and subthemes within those categories. RESULTS: Findings point to potential benefits and harms to the model, modeler, patient, and modeling process. Variables of interest relevant to future research included patients' specific roles, modeler and patient characteristics, the goals of modeling, dynamics among participators, and features of high-level procedures. The findings raise a number of specific questions that may be fruitful to explore in future research on patient involvement in health economics modeling.


Assuntos
Economia Médica , Humanos , Pesquisa Qualitativa
19.
Value Health Reg Issues ; 25: 99-103, 2021 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33848894

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Pharmacoeconomics and health economics in general is a new field that is still developing and emerging, not only in Saudi Arabia but all over the world. The objective of this study is to collect all published cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies conducted based on Saudi settings and to evaluate their reporting quality. METHODS: We used PRISMA guidelines to search for all English-language CEAs conducted in Saudi Arabia in 3 databases: Medline, Embase, and Scopus. Keywords used in the search were: cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-utility, economic evaluation, Saudi Arabia. The data extracted were analyzed to assess reporting quality based on Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Guidelines (CHEERS) and the second panel recommendations. RESULTS: The 3 databases yielded 859 articles after removing duplicates. Only 7 articles included as final results following PRISMA guidelines. These 7 studies were published between 2015 and 2020. The CEA studies varied in their reporting quality; however, there were common missing required items among all of them, such as justifying choosing of a specific model and time horizon and reporting the ethical implications of the studied interventions. CONCLUSION: Seven published CEA studies were conducted based on Saudi settings as revealed by this review. The included studies reported the more important aspects of CEA studies. However, there were missed reporting items based on the checklists we used to assess CEAs in this review. Although perfect and complete adherence to CHEERS or the second panel guidelines is a high standard, future CEAs should adhere to such standards. Transparency and good reporting are cornerstones in CEAs, and future CEAs should report their methods, findings, and results in a more transparent and efficient way.


Assuntos
Lista de Checagem , Economia Médica , Análise Custo-Benefício , Bases de Dados Factuais , Humanos , Arábia Saudita
20.
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res ; 21(5): 943-952, 2021 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33896326

RESUMO

Introduction: In this era of cost-conscious health systems, it is of utmost importance to identify and establish the most cost-effective treatment option. However, in the case of peripheral entrapment mononeuropathies there is alack of data regarding economically effective treatment strategies. Therefore, the objective was to conduct an economic evaluation including both costs and benefits of various treatment strategies applied to peripheral entrapment mononeuropathies to estimate the relative cost-effective treatment regimens.Areas covered: Over the 19 years, seven excellent-high quality economic evaluations of three types of peripheral entrapment mononeuropathies were identified in four countries. Our findings showed that surgery was the most cost-effective therapy followed by same cost efficacy of infiltrative therapy and conservative therapy for peripheral entrapment mononeuropathies. However, the fact that surgery was the most common comparator (n = 6) in our selected studies cannot be neglected.Expert opinion: Due to huge methodological variability, the finding of surgery as the cost-effective treatment strategy remains tentative and the decision about the most suitable clinical and cost-effective therapy should be individualized from case to case. Moreover, the economic evaluation of all possible treatment strategies for peripheral entrapment mononeuropathies over alonger period of analysis is required in future studies.


Assuntos
Economia Médica , Mononeuropatias/terapia , Síndromes de Compressão Nervosa/terapia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Mononeuropatias/economia , Síndromes de Compressão Nervosa/economia , Projetos de Pesquisa
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...