Dataset Information

Onwards and Upwards: A Systematic Survey of Economic Evaluation Methods in Oncology.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The type of methods used in economic evaluations of health technology can lead to results that may influence decisions. Despite the potential impact on decision making, there is very little documentation of methods used in economic evaluation in oncology pertaining to key assumptions and extrapolation methods of survival benefits, especially in terms of survival analysis techniques and methods for extrapolation.

Objectives

The primary objectives of this study were to identify, examine, and describe the methods used in economic evaluations in oncology over a 10-year period, while secondary objectives included examining the use of identified methods across different geographic regions.

Methods

A systematic search of the published oncology literature was conducted to identify economic evaluations of advanced or metastatic cancers published between 2010 and 2019 using the PUBMED, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. A random sample was taken, and information on type of study, data source, modeling techniques, and survival analysis methods were abstracted and descriptively summarized.

Results

A total of 8481 abstracts were identified and 76 economic evaluations were abstracted and assessed. Most identified studies were from North America (38%), East Asia (21%), continental Europe (18%), or the UK (16%), and most commonly focused on lung cancer (18%), colorectal cancer (16%), or breast cancer (13%). A large majority of studies were based on data from randomized controlled trials (82%), utilized a cost-utility approach (82%), and took a public healthcare system perspective (83%). Common model structures included Markov (49%) and partitioned survival (17%). Fitted parametric curves were the most commonly used extrapolation method (89%) for overall survival and most often utilized the Weibull distribution (64%). Secondary assessments showed modest regional variation in the use of identified methods, including the use of fitted parametric curves, testing of the proportional hazards assumption, and validation of results.

Conclusion

A majority of papers in the study sample reported basic characteristics of study type, data source used, modeling techniques, and utilization of survival analysis methods. However, greater detail in reporting extrapolation methods, statistical analyses, and validation of results could be potential improvements, especially across regions, in order to support greater consistency in decision making. Future research could document the diffusion of novel modeling techniques into economic evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Ball G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8333159 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:What factors determine success at University? For many years the construct of intelligence was felt to be critical. More recently, the construct of grit, has attracted the attention of many researchers, along with related concepts such as self-control, growth mind-sets and resilience. The authors of this paper have developed a specific measure of tenacity and self-composure, two constructs crucial to academic achievement. This measure comprises of 12 items drawn from the above constructs, but also including mental well-being and strengths use. In the first study, the authors report on the psychometric properties of the Bolton Uni-Stride Scale (BUSS). The new scale was administered to 1117 university students. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed two underlying factors, one labelled "tenacity" had seven items and accounted for 30% of the variance. The second was labelled "self-composure," and accounted for 14% of the variance. In the second study the BUSS was given to 340 undergraduate students along with the Grit Scale, the Self-Control Scale, the Mind-sets Quiz, the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC 10) and the short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS). This study presented evidence for good internal consistency reliability (.74) and test-retest reliability over three weeks was .70 for Tenacity and .77 for Self-composure. BUSS Academic Tenacity correlated highly with grit (.63), self-control (.59), resilience (.52), mind-sets (.35) and mental well-being (.54). The study also evidences good discriminative validity of the BUSS. A second study conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), explaining a total of 44% of the variance. The authors have shown good support for the reliability and validity of the BUSS scale. It now needs to be tested in other universities and in different countries. It is the contention of the authors that academic tenacity will be a better measure of academic success than other competing measures, such as grit, on their own. Further research is needed to test this assertion.

Project description:BackgroundAsset-based approaches (ABAs) tackle health inequalities by empowering people in more disadvantaged communities, or targeted populations, to better utilise pre-existing local community-based resources. Using existing resources supports individuals to better manage their own health and its determinants, potentially at low cost. Targeting individuals disengaged with traditional service delivery methods offers further potential for meaningful cost-savings, since these people often require costly care. Thus, improving prevention, and management, of ill-health in these groups may have considerable cost implications.AimTo systematically review the extent of current cost and economic evidence on ABAs, and methods used to develop it.MethodsSearch strategy terms encompassed: i) costing; ii) intervention detail; and iii) locality. Databases searched: Medline, CENTRAL and Wed of Science. Researchers screened 9,116 articles. Risk of bias was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. Narrative synthesis summarised findings.ResultsTwelve papers met inclusion criteria, representing eleven different ABAs. Within studies, methods varied widely, not only in design and comparators, but also in terms of included costs and outcome measures. Studies suggested economic efficiency, but lack of suitable comparators made more definitive conclusions difficult.ConclusionEconomic evidence around ABAs is limited. ABAs may be a promising way to engage underserved or minority groups, that may have lower net costs compared to alternative health and wellbeing improvement approaches. ABAs, an example of embedded services, suffer in the context of economic evaluation, which typically consider services as mutually exclusive alternatives. Economics of the surrounding services, mechanisms of information sharing, and collaboration underpin the success of assets and ABAs. The economic evidence, and evaluations in general, would benefit from increased context and detail to help ensure more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the economics of ABAs. Further evidence is needed to reach conclusions about cost-effectiveness of ABAs.