Economic evaluations of alcohol prevention interventions: Is the evidence sufficient? A review of methodological challenges.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hill SR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5710990 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being are growing fields. Whether mental health promotion and prevention interventions provide value for money in children, adolescents, adults, and older adults is unclear. The aim of the current study is to update 2 existing reviews of cost-effectiveness studies in this field in order to determine whether such interventions are cost-effective.Methods and findingsElectronic databases (including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EconLit through EBSCO and Embase) were searched for published cost-effectiveness studies of prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being from 2008 to 2020. The quality of studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument (QHES). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42019127778). The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or return on investment (ROI) ratio across all studies. A total of 65 studies met the inclusion criteria of a full economic evaluation, of which, 23 targeted children and adolescents, 35 targeted adults, while the remaining targeted older adults. A large number of studies focused on prevention of depression and/or anxiety disorders, followed by promotion of mental health and well-being and other mental disorders. Although there was high heterogeneity in terms of the design among included economic evaluations, most studies consistently found that interventions for mental health prevention and promotion were cost-effective or cost saving. The review found that targeted prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared to universal prevention. Screening plus psychological interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT]) at school were the most cost-effective interventions for prevention of mental disorders in children and adolescents, while parenting interventions and workplace interventions had good evidence in mental health promotion. There is inconclusive evidence for preventive interventions for mental disorders or mental health promotion in older adults. While studies were of general high quality, there was limited evidence available from low- and middle-income countries. The review was limited to studies where mental health was the primary outcome and may have missed general health promoting strategies that could also prevent mental disorder or promote mental health. Some ROI studies might not be included given that these studies are commonly published in grey literature rather than in the academic literature.ConclusionsOur review found a significant growth of economic evaluations in prevention of mental disorders or promotion of mental health and well-being over the last 10 years. Although several interventions for mental health prevention and promotion provide good value for money, the varied quality as well as methodologies used in economic evaluations limit the generalisability of conclusions about cost-effectiveness. However, the finding that the majority of studies especially in children, adolescents, and adults demonstrated good value for money is promising. Research on cost-effectiveness in low-middle income settings is required.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42019127778.
| S-EPMC8148329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPharmacy interventions are a subset of public health interventions and its research is usually performed within the scope of a trial. The economic evaluation of pharmacy interventions requires certain considerations which have some similarities to those of public health interventions and to economic evaluations alongside trials. The objective of this research is to perform an overview of systematic reviews of economic evaluations of pharmacy services and triangulate results with recommendations for economic evaluations of both public health interventions and alongside trials.Methods(1) Exploratory review of recommendations on the economic evaluation of public health interventions, (2) exploratory review of recommendations for conducting economic evaluations alongside trials, (3) overview of systematic reviews of economic evaluations of pharmacy interventions (protocol registered with PROSPERO 2016 outlining information sources, inclusion criteria, appraisal of reviews and synthesis methods).ResultsFourteen systematic reviews containing 75 index publications were included. Reviews reported favorable economic findings for 71% of studies with full economic evaluations. The types of economic analysis are diverse. Two critical quality domains are absent from most reviews. Key findings include the following: certain types of risk of bias, wider scope of study designs, and most economic quality criteria met but some issues unresolved or unclear. Triangulation revealed additional gaps. Limitations include choice of critical quality domains and potential biases in the overview process.ConclusionsEconomic evaluations of pharmacy-based public health interventions seem to follow most economic quality criteria, but there are still some issues in certain key areas to improve. These findings may assist in improving the design of pilot trials of economic evaluations in pharmacy, leading to robust evidence for payers. Based on the findings, we propose a methodological approach for the economic evaluation of pharmacy-based public health interventions.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016032768.
| S-EPMC6844055 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe aim of this review is to systematically assess the methodological quality of economic evaluations in integrated care and to identify challenges with conducting such studies.Theory and methodsSearches of grey-literature and scientific papers were performed, from January 2000 to December 2018. A checklist was developed to assess the quality of economic evaluations. Authors' statements of challenges encountered during their evaluations were qualitatively coded.ResultsForty-four articles were eligible for inclusion. The review found that study design, measurement of cost and outcomes, statistical analysis and presentation of data were the areas with most quality variation. Authors identified challenges mostly related to time horizon of the evaluation, inadequate or lack of comparator group, contamination bias, and a post-hoc evaluation culture.DiscussionOur review found significant differences in quality, with some studies showing poor methodological rigor; challenging conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of integrated care.ConclusionIt is essential for evaluators to use best-practice standards when planning and conducting economic evaluations, in order to build a reliable evidence base for decision-making in integrated care.
| S-EPMC6743034 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAlcohol use disorders confer a significant burden of disease and economic cost worldwide. However, the utilisation of pharmacotherapies to manage alcohol use disorder is poor. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of economic evaluation studies of alcohol use disorder pharmacotherapies.MethodsA search was conducted in Embase, Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO and EconLit (August 2019, updated September 2022). Full economic evaluations using pharmacotherapy to treat alcohol use disorders were included. Included studies were stratified by medication and summarised descriptively. The Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list was used to assess the methodological quality.ResultsA total of 1139 studies were retrieved, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. Four studies analysed nalmefene, four studies assessed acamprosate, three for naltrexone and four for stand-alone and/or combinations of naltrexone and acamprosate. There were 21 interventions synthesised from 15 studies as some studies evaluated multiple interventions and comparators. More than half of the included studies (73%) reported pharmacotherapy as dominant (less costly and more effective than comparators). From healthcare payer perspectives, five studies found that pharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was dominant or cost-effective, accruing additional benefits at a higher cost but under accepted willingness to pay thresholds. Three analyses from a societal perspective found pharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was a dominant or cost-effective strategy. Quality scores ranged from 63% to 95%.ConclusionPharmacotherapy added to psychosocial support was cost-effective from both healthcare and societal perspectives, emphasising an increased role for pharmacotherapy to reduce the burden of alcohol use disorders.
| S-EPMC10838482 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In the first 5 years after their stroke, about a quarter of patients will suffer from a recurrent stroke. Digital health interventions facilitating interactions between a caregiver and a patient from a distance are a promising approach to improve patient adherence to lifestyle changes proposed by secondary prevention guidelines. Many of these interventions are not implemented in daily practice, even though efficacy has been shown. One of the reasons can be the lack of clear economic incentives for implementation. We propose to map all health economic evidence regarding digital health interventions for secondary stroke prevention. SUMMARY:We performed a systematic search according to PRISMA-P guidelines and searched on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database. Only digital health interventions for secondary prevention in stroke patients were included and all study designs and health economic outcomes were accepted. We combined the terms "Stroke OR Cardiovascular," "Secondary prevention," "Digital health interventions," and "Cost" in one search string using the AND operator. The search performed on April 20, 2017 yielded 163 records of which 26 duplicates were removed. After abstract screening, 20 articles were retained for full-text analysis, of which none reported any health economic evidence that could be included for analysis or discussion. Key Messages: There is a lack of evidence on health economic outcomes on digital health interventions for secondary stroke prevention. Future research in this area should take health economics into consideration when designing a trial and there is a clear need for health economic evidence and models.
| S-EPMC6489060 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionScaling science aims to help roll out evidence-based research results on a wide scale to benefit more individuals. Yet, little is known on how to evaluate economic aspects of scaling up strategies of evidence-based health interventions.Methods and analysisUsing the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on systematic reviews, we will conduct a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied in economic evaluations in scaling up strategies. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must include a scaling up strategy of an evidence-based health intervention delivered and received by any individual or organisation in any country and setting. They must report costs and cost-effectiveness outcomes. We will consider full or partial economic evaluations, modelling and methodological studies. We searched peer-reviewed publications in Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library Database, PEDE, EconLIT, INHATA from their inception onwards. We will search grey literature from international organisations, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organisations, consultancy firms websites and region-specific databases. Two independent reviewers will screen the records against the eligibility criteria and extract data using a pretested extraction form. We will extract data on study characteristics, scaling up strategies, economic evaluation methods and their components. We will appraise the methodological quality of included studies using the BMJ Checklist. We will narratively summarise the studies' descriptive characteristics, methodological strengths/weaknesses and the main drivers of cost-effectiveness outcomes. This study will help identify what are the trade-offs of scaling up evidence-based interventions to allocate resources efficiently.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is required as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed, international journal and presented at national and international conferences.
| S-EPMC8487175 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextHealth economic evaluations (e.g., cost-effectiveness analysis) can guide the efficient use of resources to improve health outcomes. This study aims to summarize the content and quality of interpersonal violence prevention economic evaluations.Evidence acquisitionIn 2020, peer-reviewed journal articles published during 2000-2019 focusing on high-income countries were identified using index terms in multiple databases. Study content, including violence type prevented (e.g., child abuse and neglect), outcome measure (e.g., abusive head trauma clinical diagnosis), intervention type (e.g., education program), study methods, and results were summarized. Studies reporting on selected key methods elements essential for study comparison and public health decision making (e.g., economic perspective, time horizon, discounting, currency year) were assessed.Evidence synthesisA total of 26 economic evaluation studies were assessed, most of which reported that assessed interventions yielded good value for money. Physical assault in the community and child abuse and neglect were the most common violence types examined. Studies applied a wide variety of cost estimates to value avoided violence. Less than two thirds of the studies reported all the key methods elements.ConclusionsComprehensive data collection on violence averted and intervention costs in experimental settings can increase opportunities to identify interventions that generate long-term value. More comprehensive estimates of the cost of violence can improve opportunities to demonstrate how prevention investment can be offset through avoided future costs. Better adherence to health economic evaluation reporting standards can enhance comparability across studies and may increase the likelihood that economic evidence is included in violence prevention decision making.
| S-EPMC7987799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to suggestions that cost-effectiveness analyses should adopt a broader perspective when estimating costs. This review aims to provide an overview of economic evaluations of interventions against viral pandemics in terms of the perspective taken, types of costs included, comparators, type of economic model, data sources and methods for estimating productivity costs.Study designScoping literature review.MethodsPublications were eligible if they conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis or cost-minimisation analysis and evaluated interventions aimed at viral pandemics or for patients infected with viral pandemic disease. We searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus for relevant references and charted data from the selected full-text publications into a predefined spreadsheet based on research sub-questions, summary tables and figures.ResultsFrom 5410 references, 36 full-text publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The economic evaluations were mainly model based and included direct medical costs of hospital treatment. Around half of the studies included productivity costs and the proportion of total costs attributed to productivity costs ranged from 10% to 90%, depending on estimation methods, assumptions about valuation of time, type of intervention, severity of illness and degree of transmission.ConclusionsEconomic evaluations of interventions against viral pandemics differed in terms of estimation methods and reporting of productivity costs, even for similar interventions. Hence, the literature on economic evaluations for pandemic response would benefit from having standards for conducting and reporting economic evaluations, especially for productivity costs.
| S-EPMC9212686 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the light of demographic developments health promotion interventions for older people are gaining importance. In addition to methodological challenges arising from the economic evaluation of health promotion interventions in general, there are specific methodological problems for the particular target group of older people. There are especially four main methodological challenges that are discussed in the literature. They concern measurement and valuation of informal caregiving, accounting for productivity costs, effects of unrelated cost in added life years and the inclusion of 'beyond-health' benefits. This paper focuses on the question whether and to what extent specific methodological requirements are actually met in applied health economic evaluations.MethodsFollowing a systematic review of pertinent health economic evaluations, the included studies are analysed on the basis of four assessment criteria that are derived from methodological debates on the economic evaluation of health promotion interventions in general and economic evaluations targeting older people in particular.ResultsOf the 37 studies included in the systematic review, only very few include cost and outcome categories discussed as being of specific relevance to the assessment of health promotion interventions for older people. The few studies that consider these aspects use very heterogeneous methods, thus there is no common methodological standard.ConclusionThere is a strong need for the development of guidelines to achieve better comparability and to include cost categories and outcomes that are relevant for older people. Disregarding these methodological obstacles could implicitly lead to discrimination against the elderly in terms of health promotion and disease prevention and, hence, an age-based rationing of public health care.
| S-EPMC5902889 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Equity in health has become an important policy agenda around the world, prompting health economists to advance methods to enable the inclusion of equity in economic evaluations. Among the methods that have been proposed to explicitly include equity are the weighting analysis, equity impact analysis, and equity trade-off analysis. This is a new development and a comprehensive overview of trends and concepts of health equity in economic evaluations is lacking. Thus, our objective is to map the current state of the literature with respect to how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions reported in the academic and gray literature. METHODS:We will conduct a scoping review to identify and map evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions. We will search relevant electronic, gray literature and key journals. We developed a search strategy using text words and Medical Subject Headings terms related to health equity and economic evaluations of health interventions. Articles retrieved will be uploaded to reference manager software for screening and data extraction. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles based on their titles and abstracts for inclusion, and then will independently screen a full text to ascertain final inclusion. A simple numerical count will be used to quantify the data and a content analysis will be conducted to present the narrative; that is, a thematic summary of the data collected. DISCUSSION:The results of this scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions and its research gaps. It will also provide key information to decision-makers and policy-makers to understand ways to include health equity into the prioritization of health interventions when aiming for a more equitable distribution of health resources. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:This protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) Registry on August 14, 2019 (https://osf.io/9my2z/registrations).
| S-EPMC6950907 | biostudies-literature