Dataset Information

A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments.

ABSTRACT: Internationally, policy makers are increasingly focussed on reducing the detrimental consequences and rising costs associated with unhealthy diets, inactivity, smoking, alcohol and other risk factors on the health of their populations. This has led to an increase in the demand for evidence-based, cost-effective Population Health Interventions (PHIs) to reverse this trend. Given that research designs such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often not suited to the evaluation of PHIs, Natural Experiments (NEs) are now frequently being used as a design to evaluate such complex, preventive PHIs. However, current guidance for economic evaluation focusses on RCT designs and therefore does not address the specific challenges of NE designs. Using such guidance can lead to sub-optimal design, data collection and analysis for NEs, leading to bias in the estimated effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PHI. As a consequence, there is a growing recognition of the need to identify a robust methodological framework for the design and conducting of economic evaluations alongside such NEs. This paper outlines the challenges inherent to the design and conduct of economic evaluations of PHIs alongside NEs, providing a comprehensive framework and outlining a research agenda in this area.

SUBMITTER: Deidda M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6323352 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments.

Deidda Manuela M Geue Claudia C Kreif Noemi N Dundas Ruth R McIntosh Emma E

Social science & medicine (1982) 20181127

Internationally, policy makers are increasingly focussed on reducing the detrimental consequences and rising costs associated with unhealthy diets, inactivity, smoking, alcohol and other risk factors on the health of their populations. This has led to an increase in the demand for evidence-based, cost-effective Population Health Interventions (PHIs) to reverse this trend. Given that research designs such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often not suited to the evaluation of PHIs, Natur ...[more]

PMID: 30513485

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThe aim of this systematic review of economic evaluations alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was to provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence concerning cost-effectiveness analyses of common treatment options for major depression.MethodsAn existing database was used to identify studies reporting cost-effectiveness results from RCTs. This database has been developed by a systematic literature search in the bibliographic databases of PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase and Cochrane library from database inception to December 2014. We evaluated the quality of economic evaluations using a 10-item short version of the Drummond checklist. Results were synthesised narratively. The risk of bias of the included RCTs was assessed, based on the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool.ResultsFourteen RCTs were included from the 5580 articles screened on titles and abstracts. The methodological quality of the health economic evaluations was relatively high and the majority of the included RCTs had low risk of bias in most of Cochrane items except blinding of participants and personnel. Cognitive behavioural therapy was examined in seven trials as part of a variety of treatment protocols and seems cost-effective compared with pharmacotherapy in the long-term. However cost-effectiveness results for the combination of psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy are conflicting and should be interpreted with caution due to limited comparability between the examined trials. For several treatments, only a single economic evaluation was reported as part of a clinical trial. This was the case for comparisons between different classes of antidepressants, for several types of psychotherapy (behavioural activation, occupational therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, short-term psychotherapy, psychodynamic psychotherapy, rational emotive behavioural therapy, solution focused therapy), and for transcranial magnetic stimulation v. electroconvulsive therapy. The limited evidence base for these interventions means generalisations, based on economic evaluation alongside clinical trials, cannot easily be made.ConclusionsThere is some economic evidence underpinning many of the common treatment options for major depression. Wide variability was observed in study outcomes, probably attributable to differences in population, interventions or follow-up periods. For many interventions, only a single economic evaluation alongside clinical trials was identified. Thus, significant economic evidence gaps remain in the area of major depressive disorder.

Project description:BackgroundIn low- and middle-income countries, budget impact is an important criterion for funding new interventions, particularly for large public health investments such as new vaccines. However, budget impact analyses remain less frequently conducted and less well researched than cost-effectiveness analyses.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to fill the gap in research on budget impact analyses by assessing (1) the quality of stand-alone budget impact analyses, and (2) the feasibility of extending cost-effectiveness analyses to capture budget impact.MethodsWe developed a budget impact analysis checklist and scoring system for budget impact analyses, which we then adapted for cost-effectiveness analyses, based on current International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force recommendations. We applied both budget impact analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis checklists and scoring systems to examine the extent to which existing economic evaluations provide sufficient evidence about budget impact to enable decision making. We used rotavirus vaccination as an illustrative case in which low- and middle-income countries uptake has been limited despite demonstrated cost effectiveness. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries published between January 2000 and February 2017. We critically appraised the quality of budget impact analyses, and assessed the extension of cost-effectiveness analyses to provide useful budget impact information.ResultsSix budget impact analyses and 60 cost-effectiveness analyses were identified. Budget impact analyses adhered to most International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research recommendations, with key exceptions being provision of undiscounted financial streams for each budget period and model validation. Most cost-effectiveness analyses could not be extended to provide useful budget impact information; cost-effectiveness analyses also rarely presented undiscounted annual costs, or estimated financial streams during the first years of programme scale-up.ConclusionsCost-effectiveness analyses vastly outnumber budget impact analyses of rotavirus vaccination, despite both being critical for policy decision making. Straightforward changes to the presentation of cost-effectiveness analyses results could facilitate their adaptation into budget impact analyses.

Dataset Information

A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments.

Publications

A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets