Dataset Information

EQUIPT: protocol of a comparative effectiveness research study evaluating cross-context transferability of economic evidence on tobacco control.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Tobacco smoking claims 700,000 lives every year in Europe and the cost of tobacco smoking in the EU is estimated between €98 and €130 billion annually; direct medical care costs and indirect costs such as workday losses each represent half of this amount. Policymakers all across Europe are in need of bespoke information on the economic and wider returns of investing in evidence-based tobacco control, including smoking cessation agendas. EQUIPT is designed to test the transferability of one such economic evidence base-the English Tobacco Return on Investment (ROI) tool-to other EU member states.

Methods and analysis

EQUIPT is a multicentre, interdisciplinary comparative effectiveness research study in public health. The Tobacco ROI tool already developed in England by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) will be adapted to meet the needs of European decision-makers, following transferability criteria. Stakeholders' needs and intention to use ROI tools in sample countries (Germany, Hungary, Spain and the Netherlands) will be analysed through interviews and surveys and complemented by secondary analysis of the contextual and other factors. Informed by this contextual analysis, the next phase will develop country-specific ROI tools in sample countries using a mix of economic modelling and Visual Basic programming. The results from the country-specific ROI models will then be compared to derive policy proposals that are transferable to other EU states, from which a centralised web tool will be developed. This will then be made available to stakeholders to cater for different decision-making contexts across Europe.

Ethics and dissemination

The Brunel University Ethics Committee and relevant authorities in each of the participating countries approved the protocol. EQUIPT has a dedicated work package on dissemination, focusing on stakeholders' communication needs. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, e-learning resources and policy briefs.

SUBMITTER: Pokhrel S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4244438 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

EQUIPT: protocol of a comparative effectiveness research study evaluating cross-context transferability of economic evidence on tobacco control.

Pokhrel Subhash S Evers Silvia S Leidl Reiner R Trapero-Bertran Marta M Kalo Zoltan Z Vries Hein de Hd Crossfield Andrea A Andrews Fiona F Rutter Ailsa A Coyle Kathryn K Lester-George Adam A West Robert R Owen Lesley L Jones Teresa T Vogl Matthias M Radu-Loghin Cornel C Voko Zoltan Z Huic Mirjana M Coyle Doug D

BMJ open 20141124 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Tobacco smoking claims 700,000 lives every year in Europe and the cost of tobacco smoking in the EU is estimated between €98 and €130 billion annually; direct medical care costs and indirect costs such as workday losses each represent half of this amount. Policymakers all across Europe are in need of bespoke information on the economic and wider returns of investing in evidence-based tobacco control, including smoking cessation agendas. EQUIPT is designed to test the transfe ...[more]

PMID: 25421342

Similar Datasets

Project description:Comparative effectiveness research (CER) calls for substantial changes in the way clinical research is conducted, interpreted and practically applied in the USA, in order to produce useful clinical evidence. Departing from classic efficacy and effectiveness research, the evolving CER paradigm requires structural and substantive innovations that address three basic questions: what works? for whom? and in whose hands? Addressing these questions will require fundamental changes in the approach to clinical research that include: the use of active treatments (or comparators) versus placebos in the comparisons of treatments, innovative or 'alternative' research methods, the specification and a priori design of studies to account for important subgroups, accounting for the nested nature of healthcare delivery in design and analysis of CER, the simultaneous study of multiple treatments or treatment modalities, the study of multiple outcomes (benefits and harms) for each treatment compared, and the reassessment of the value of different study designs in the hierarchy of collective 'evidence'. In order to aid individual providers and patients in making informed, personalized treatment decisions, guided by the best evidence possible, CER studies must generalize to a broad range of subgroups reflecting the spectrum of patients, providers and health systems that populate real-world practice settings. Without expansion in the scope, conduct and subsequent interpretation of clinical research reflected in the issues outlined above, CER will fall short of its potential for informing evidence-based practice and personalized medicine. The current paradigm for conducting, interpreting and applying clinical research does not meet the needs of optimal generalizability and application to individual physician-patient efforts to identify the most effective treatment, and therefore does not support the basic requirements of CER. The proposed changes should neither require decades nor exorbitant budgets to achieve. Using two examples, prostate cancer, and comparisons of single medications, we illustrated how the proposed changes in clinical research, matching strategy to each application, might be addressed.

Project description:BackgroundThe comparative effectiveness (CE) of endoscopic screening (versus no screening) for Barrett's esophagus (BE) in patients with GERD symptoms, or among different endoscopic surveillance strategies in patients with BE, for the early detection of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) is unknown. Furthermore, it is unclear if patients or providers have or will adopt any of these strategies (screening only, screening and surveillance, vs. none), irrespective of their effectiveness. Endoscopic screening and surveillance is expensive and can be risky. Therefore, it is imperative to establish the CE and acceptability about the risks and outcomes related to these practices to better inform expert recommendations and provider-patient decisions.Methods/resultsWe propose a mixed methods study which will involve: (1) an analysis of secondary databases (VA and VA-Medicare linked datasets for 2004-09) to examine CE of endoscopic screening and surveillance in an observational study cohort (an estimated 680,000 patients with GERD; 25,000-30,000 with BE; and 3,000 with EA); (2) a structured electronic medical record (EMR) review on a national sample of patients using VA EMRs to verify all EA cases, identify cancer stage, cancer-targeted therapy, and validate the screening and surveillance endoscopy; and (3) qualitative in depth interviews with patients and providers to elicit preferences, norms, and behaviors to explain clinical contexts of these findings and address gaps arising from the CE study.ConclusionThis study will compare clinical strategies for detecting and monitoring BE, a pre-cancerous lesion. Additionally, by eliciting acceptability of these strategies for patients and providers, we will be able to propose effective and feasible strategies that are likely to be implemented in routine use. Findings will inform recommendations for clinical practice guidelines. Our innovative approach is consistent with the methodological standards of patient-centered outcomes research, and our findings will offer a significant contribution to the literature on cancer surveillance.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:There has been a growing awareness of the need for rigorously and transparent reported health research, to ensure the reproducibility of studies by future researchers. Health economic evaluations, the comparative analysis of alternative interventions in terms of their costs and consequences, have been promoted as an important tool to inform decision-making. The objective of this study will be to investigate the extent to which articles of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions indexed in MEDLINE incorporate research practices that promote transparency, openness and reproducibility. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This is the study protocol for a cross-sectional comparative analysis. We registered the study protocol within the Open Science Framework (osf.io/gzaxr). We will evaluate a random sample of 600 cost-effectiveness analysis publications, a specific form of health economic evaluations, indexed in MEDLINE during 2012 (n=200), 2019 (n=200) and 2022 (n=200). We will include published papers written in English reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of costs per life years gained, quality-adjusted life years and/or disability-adjusted life years. Screening and selection of articles will be conducted by at least two researchers. Reproducible research practices, openness and transparency in each article will be extracted using a standardised data extraction form by multiple researchers, with a 33% random sample (n=200) extracted in duplicate. Information on general, methodological and reproducibility items will be reported, stratified by year, citation of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement and journal. Risk ratios with 95% CIs will be calculated to represent changes in reporting between 2012-2019 and 2019-2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Due to the nature of the proposed study, no ethical approval will be required. All data will be deposited in a cross-disciplinary public repository. It is anticipated the study findings could be relevant to a variety of audiences. Study findings will be disseminated at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Project description:ObjectivesMany guidelines and regulations allow children and adolescents to be enrolled in research without the prospect of clinical benefit when it poses minimal risk. However, few systematic methods exist to determine when research risks are minimal. This situation has led to significant variation in minimal risk judgments, raising concern that some children are not being adequately protected. To address this concern, we describe a new method for implementing the widely endorsed "risks of daily life" standard for minimal risk. This standard defines research risks as minimal when they do not exceed the risks posed by daily life activities or routine examinations.MethodsThis study employed a conceptual and normative analysis, and use of an illustrative example.ResultsDifferent risks are composed of the same basic elements: Type, likelihood, and magnitude of harm. Hence, one can compare the risks of research and the risks of daily life by comparing the respective basic elements with each other. We use this insight to develop a systematic method, direct comparative analysis, for implementing the "risks of daily life" standard for minimal risk. The method offers a way of evaluating research procedures that pose the same types of risk as daily life activities, such as the risk of experiencing anxiety, stress, or other psychological harm. We thus illustrate how direct comparative analysis can be applied in practice by using it to evaluate whether the anxiety induced by a respiratory CO2 challenge poses minimal or greater than minimal risks in children and adolescents.ConclusionsDirect comparative analysis is a systematic method for applying the "risks of daily life" standard for minimal risk to research procedures that pose the same types of risk as daily life activities. It thereby offers a method to protect children and adolescents in research, while ensuring that important studies are not blocked because of unwarranted concerns about research risks.

Dataset Information

EQUIPT: protocol of a comparative effectiveness research study evaluating cross-context transferability of economic evidence on tobacco control.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

EQUIPT: protocol of a comparative effectiveness research study evaluating cross-context transferability of economic evidence on tobacco control.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets