Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Core Items for a Standardized Resource Use Measure: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.
Thorn, Joanna C; Brookes, Sara T; Ridyard, Colin; Riley, Ruth; Hughes, Dyfrig A; Wordsworth, Sarah; Noble, Sian M; Thornton, Gail; Hollingworth, William.
Afiliação
  • Thorn JC; School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Electronic address: joanna.thorn@bristol.ac.uk.
  • Brookes ST; School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Ridyard C; Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor Institute for Health and Medical Research, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
  • Riley R; School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Hughes DA; Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor Institute for Health and Medical Research, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
  • Wordsworth S; Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Noble SM; School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Thornton G; School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Hollingworth W; School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Value Health ; 21(6): 640-649, 2018 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29909868
BACKGROUND: Resource use measurement by patient recall is characterized by inconsistent methods and a lack of validation. A validated standardized resource use measure could increase data quality, improve comparability between studies, and reduce research burden. OBJECTIVES: To identify a minimum set of core resource use items that should be included in a standardized adult instrument for UK health economic evaluation from a provider perspective. METHODS: Health economists with experience of UK-based economic evaluations were recruited to participate in an electronic Delphi survey. Respondents were asked to rate 60 resource use items (e.g., medication names) on a scale of 1 to 9 according to the importance of the item in a generic context. Items considered less important according to predefined consensus criteria were dropped and a second survey was developed. In the second round, respondents received the median score and their own score from round 1 for each item alongside summarized comments and were asked to rerate items. A final project team meeting was held to determine the recommended core set. RESULTS: Forty-five participants completed round 1. Twenty-six items were considered less important and were dropped, 34 items were retained for the second round, and no new items were added. Forty-two respondents (93.3%) completed round 2, and greater consensus was observed. After the final meeting, 10 core items were selected, with further items identified as suitable for "bolt-on" questionnaire modules. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus on 10 items considered important in a generic context suggests that a standardized instrument for core resource use items is feasible.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Recursos em Saúde Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adult / Child / Humans País/Região como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Recursos em Saúde Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Health_economic_evaluation / Prognostic_studies Limite: Adult / Child / Humans País/Região como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article