Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Methods and Study Quality of Economic Evaluations for the Treatment of Schizophrenia

ABSTRACT: Background: Schizophrenia is a severe and complex disease with substantial economic and social burdens. Despite multiple treatment choices, adverse events, and impaired social functions are still challenges in clinical therapy. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations could provide evidence to help decision makers improve the utilization of scarce resources. However, there remains some challenges especially in modeling due to uncertainties in progression of schizophrenia. There are limited summaries about the overall methodologies of schizophrenia economic evaluations. Objective: The aim of this study is to review the existing economic evaluations of antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia and summarize the evidence and methods applied. Methods: An electronic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO host, The Cochrane Library and ScienceDirect from January 2014 to December 2020. Search terms included “schizophrenia,” “schizophrenic,” “pharmacoeconomic,” “economic evaluation,” “cost-effectiveness,” and “cost-utility.” The Literature was screened and extracted by two researchers independently and assessed with the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) List and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement. Results: A total of 25 studies were included in the review. The regions included Europe, North America, Asia and Africa. Most of the studies chose second-generation antipsychotics as comparators and integrated treatment sequences. Time horizons varied from 1 year to lifetime. The healthcare sector was the most common perspective, accordingly, most of the evaluations considered only direct medical costs. The Markov model and decision tree model were the most common choices. Adverse events, compliance and persistence were considered important parameters. Quality-adjusted life-years were the major outcomes applied to the economic evaluations. All utilities for health states and adverse events were collected from published literature. All of the studies applied uncertainty analysis to explore the robustness of the results. The quality of the studies was generally satisfactory. However, improvements were needed in the choice of time horizons, the measurements of outcomes and the descriptions of assumptions. Conclusions: This study highlights the methodology of economic evaluation of schizophrenia. Recommendations for modeling method and future study are provided.

SUBMITTER: Wang L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8564012 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To systematically review and appraise the quality of economic evaluations assessing centralisation of specialised healthcare services.A systematic review to identify economic evaluations on centralisation of any specialised healthcare service. Full economic evaluations comparing costs and consequences of centralisation of any specialised healthcare service were eligible for inclusion. Methodological characteristics of included studies were appraised using checklists adapted from recommended guidelines.A total of 64 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. Two studies were conducted in the UK. Most of the studies used volume of activity as a proxy measure of centralisation. The methods used to assess centralisation were heterogeneous. Studies differed in terms of study design used and aspect of centralisation they considered. There were major limitations in studies. Only 12 studies reported the study perspective. Charges which are not true representation of costs were used by 17 studies to assess cost outcomes. Only 10 reported the detailed breakdown of the cost components used in their analysis. Discounting was necessary in 14 studies but was reported only in 7 studies. Sensitivity analyses were included by less than one-third of the studies. The applicability of the identified studies to a setting other than the one they were conducted in is questionable, given variations in the organisation of services and healthcare costs. Centralisation as a concept has also been variably and narrowly defined as activity of specific services which may not reflect the wider aspects of centralisation.Confounded and biased information coming from studies without standardised methods may mislead decision-makers towards making wrong decisions on centralisation. It is important to improve the methodology and reporting of economic evaluations in order to provide more robust and transferable evidence. Wider aspects of healthcare centralisation should be considered in the estimates of costs and health outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In increasingly constrained healthcare budgets worldwide, efforts to improve quality and reduce costs are vital. Quality Improvement Collaboratives (QICs) are often used in healthcare settings to implement proven clinical interventions within local and national programs. The cost of this method of implementation, however, is cited as a barrier to use. This systematic review aims to identify and describe studies reporting on costs and cost-effectiveness of QICs when used to implement clinical guidelines in healthcare. METHODS:Multiple databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, EconLit and ProQuest) were searched for economic evaluations or cost studies of QICs in healthcare. Studies were included if they reported on economic evaluations or costs of QICs. Two authors independently reviewed citations and full text papers. Key characteristics of eligible studies were extracted, and their quality assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Evers CHEC-List was used for full economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness findings were interpreted through the Johanna Briggs Institute 'three by three dominance matrix tool' to guide conclusions. Currencies were converted to United States dollars for 2018 using OECD and World Bank databases. RESULTS:Few studies reported on costs or economic evaluations of QICs despite their use in healthcare. Eight studies across multiple healthcare settings in acute and long-term care, community addiction treatment and chronic disease management were included. Five were considered good quality and favoured the establishment of QICs as cost-effective implementation methods. The cost savings to the healthcare setting identified in these studies outweighed the cost of the collaborative itself. CONCLUSIONS:Potential cost savings to the health care system in both acute and chronic conditions may be possible by applying QICs at scale. However, variations in effectiveness, costs and elements of the method within studies, indicated that caution is needed. Consistent identification of costs and description of the elements applied in QICs would better inform decisions for their use and may reduce perceived barriers. Lack of studies with negative findings may have been due to publication bias. Future research should include economic evaluations with societal perspectives of costs and savings and the cost-effectiveness of elements of QICs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018107417.

Project description:BackgroundHealth economic evaluation identifies, measures, values, and compares alternative strategies to efficiently allocate scarce resources. The validity, methodological quality, and generalizability of economic evaluations must be assessed, as poorly designed studies can lead to incorrect conclusions. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the quality and characteristics of published economic evaluations done in Ethiopia, using the Quality of Health Economics Studies (QHES) and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) instruments.MethodologyVarious electronic databases were searched using different keywords. We included only original studies conducted in Ethiopia that evaluated the cost and consequences of at least two health interventions. Abstracts, treatment guidelines, reviews, expert opinions, and studies that included other countries were excluded. Two reviewers independently evaluated each study using the QHES and CHEERS instruments and any disagreements were then resolved by a third reviewer.ResultThe study included 21 studies published between 2002 and 2021. HIV was the most frequently evaluated medical condition, examined in four (19.06%) of the 21 studies. Seventeen of the studies (80.95%) compared healthcare services or programs, while the other four examined pharmaceutical products. Cost-utility analysis was the economic evaluation technique used in 14 studies (66.67%). Of the studies that disclosed their funding sources, foreign institutions were involved in funding 71.43% of them. Disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) was an outcome metric used in nine (42.86%) studies. The average QHES score of the studies was 82%. Fourteen studies had QHES scores of ≥75% and two had scores of <50%. The studies evaluated using the CHEERS instrument ranged in quality from 42.9% to 92.9%, with an average of 78.23%.ConclusionOur study revealed that Ethiopia lacks health economic evaluations, particularly on non-communicable diseases. This indicates that the economic evaluation of healthcare interventions in Ethiopia is still in its early stages. Additionally, Ethiopian institutions have played a very limited role in funding research, highlighting the importance of active participation from local institutions.

Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Methods and Study Quality of Economic Evaluations for the Treatment of Schizophrenia

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets