Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T09:27:21.549Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adherence to country-specific guidelines among economic evaluations undertaken in three high-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2021

Deepshikha Sharma ,
Arun Kumar Aggarwal ,
Thomas Wilkinson ,
Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai ,
Akashdeep Singh Chauhan  and
Shankar Prinja Open the ORCID record for Shankar Prinja [Opens in a new window]
Deepshikha Sharma
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh160047, India
Arun Kumar Aggarwal
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh160047, India
Thomas Wilkinson
Affiliation:
Health Economics Unit, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai
Affiliation:
Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Bangkok, Thailand Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Akashdeep Singh Chauhan
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh160047, India
Shankar Prinja*
Affiliation:
Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh160047, India
*
Author for correspondence: Shankar Prinja, E-mail: shankarprinja@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To assess the adherence of economic evaluations to the recommendations on principles of economic evaluation as stated in the country-specific guidelines for three countries across different income groups, namely, Canada, South Africa, and Egypt.

Methods

Searches were undertaken in three databases to identify economic evaluations meeting predefined inclusion criteria. Methodological and reporting standards listed in the country-specific guidelines were converted into discrete binary variables to calculate mean adherence scores. Quality appraisal was done using Drummond's checklist. Stratified analysis was undertaken to identify independent variables affecting adherence.

Results

We identified forty-four, seventy-nine, and sixteen economic evaluations for Canada, South Africa, and Egypt, respectively. The mean adherence score was the highest for Canada (71%), followed by South Africa (65%) and Egypt (60%). Adherence to guidelines was positively correlated with quality of studies, r = .72. Furthermore, the mean adherence score was significantly (p < .05) higher for studies using a cost-utility analysis design (72%), having local/national funding aid (72%), undertaken by a health economist (71%) and for pharmacoeconomic evaluations (70%).

Conclusion

The quality of economic evaluations improves with adherence to country-specific guidelines. Locally funded and health-economist led health technology assessments (HTAs) should be encouraged for greater adherence to the guidelines. The HTA researchers and the HTA bodies should lay emphasis on adherence to the country-specific guidelines for improving the quality of HTA evidence.

Keywords

Economic evaluationHealth technology assessmentPharmacoeconomicsGuidelinesSystematic review
Type
Assessment
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , 2021 , e73
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

World Health Organization. Health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage. The Sixty-seventh World Health Assembly. 2014 [cited 2020 Jul 21]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/m/abstract/Js21463en/Google Scholar
Pitt, C, Goodman, C, Hanson, K. Economic evaluation in global perspective: A bibliometric analysis of the recent literature. Health Econ. 2016;25:9–28. doi:10.1002/hec.3305CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neumann, PJ, Thorat, T, Shi, J, Saret, CJ, Cohen, JT. The changing face of the cost-utility literature, 1990−2012. Value Health. 2015;18:271–7. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, UK, Legood, R, Pitt, C. Comparison of economic evaluation methods across low-income, middle-income and high-income countries: What are the differences and Why? Health Econ. 2016;25:29–41. doi:10.1002/hec.3312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutter, MF, Rodríguez-Ibeas, R, Antonanzas, F. Methodological reviews of economic evaluations in health care: What do they target? Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:829–40. doi:10.1007/s10198-013-0527-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santatiwongchai, B, Chantarastapornchit, V, Wilkinson, T, Thiboonboon, K, Rattanavipapong, W, Walker, DG, et al. Methodological variation in economic evaluations conducted in low- and middle-income countries: Information for reference case development. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0123853. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123853CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prinja, S, Chauhan, AS, Angell, B, Gupta, I, Jan, S. A systematic review of the state of economic evaluation for health care in India. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13:595–613. doi:10.1007/s40258-015-0201-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Aqeel, SA. State of health economic evaluation research in Saudi Arabia: A review. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;4:177–84. doi:10.2147/CEOR.S31087CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haghparast-Bidgoli, H, Kiadaliri, AA, Skordis-Worrall, J. Do economic evaluation studies inform effective healthcare resource allocation in Iran? A critical review of the literature. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2014;12:15. doi:10.1186/1478-7547-12-15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adeagbo, CU, Rattanavipapong, W, Guinness, L, Teerawattananon, Y. The development of the guide to economic analysis and research (GEAR) online resource for low- and middle-income countries’ health economics practitioners: A commentary. Value Health. 2018;21:569–72. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, M, Sculpher, M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care. 2005;43:5–14. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000170001.10393.b7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guide to Economic Analysis and Research. Guidelines comparison: What can I learn from the existing health economic evaluation guidelines? 2019 [cited 2020 Aug 11]. Available from: http://www.gear4health.com/gear/health-economic-evaluation-guidelinesGoogle Scholar
Sanders, GD, Neumann, PJ, Basu, A, Brock, DW, Feeny, D, Krahn, M, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316:1093–103. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.12195CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, T, Sculpher, MJ, Claxton, K, Revill, P, Briggs, A, Cairns, JA, et al. The international decision support initiative reference case for economic evaluation: An aid to thought. Value Health. 2016;19:921–8. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emerson, J, Panzer, A, Cohen, JT, Chalkidou, K, Teerawattananon, Y, Sculpher, M, et al. Adherence to the iDSI reference case among published cost-per-DALY averted studies. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0205633. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0205633CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, KA, Chen, JL. Impact of the U.S. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22:98–105. doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00409-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research [ISPOR]. Pharmacoeconomic guidelines around the world. ISPOR. 2021 [cited 2021 March 15]. Available from: http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/Google Scholar
Marchildon, G. Canada: Health system review. Health Syst Transit. 2013;15:1–179.Google ScholarPubMed
Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 1st ed. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 1994.Google Scholar
Torrance, GW, Blaker, D, Detsky, A, Kennedy, W, Schubert, F, Menon, D, et al. Canadian guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals. Canadian collaborative workshop for pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996;9:535–59. doi:10.2165/00019053-199609060-00008. PMID: 10160481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 4th ed. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2017 [cited 2020 Jul 11]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/dv/guidelines-economic-evaluation-health-technologies-canada-4th-editionGoogle Scholar
Mills, A, Ataguba, JE, Akazili, J, Borghi, J, Garshong, B, Makawia, S, et al. Equity in financing and use of health care in Ghana, South Africa, and Tanzania: Implications for paths to universal coverage. Lancet. 2012;380:126–33. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60357CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ataguba, J. Health care financing in South Africa: Moving towards universal coverage. Continuing Medical Educ. 2010;28.Google Scholar
Department Health Republic of South Africa. National Health Insurance [cited 2020 Oct 7]. Available from: http://www.health.gov.za/index.php/nhiGoogle Scholar
National Department of Health. Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Submissions. December 2012. [cited 2020 Oct 7]. Available from: https://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/PEGazette_February2013_SouthAfrica.pdfGoogle Scholar
Elsisi, GH, Kaló, Z, Eldessouki, R, Elmahdawy, MD, Saad, A, Ragab, S, et al. Recommendations for reporting pharmacoeconomic evaluations in Egypt. Value Health Reg Issues. 2013;2(2):319–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pharmacoeconomic Unit, Central Administration for Pharmaceutical Affairs. Guidelines for reporting pharmacoeconomic evaluations in Egypt. 2013.Google Scholar
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. York Publ. Services; 2009.Google Scholar
Sharma, D, Aggarwal, AK, Chauhan, AS, Prinja, S. Adherence of health economic evaluations to country specific guidelines: A protocol for systematic review. Int J Health Syst Implement Res. 2020;4:92–8.Google Scholar
Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Claxton, K, Stoddart, GL, Torrance, GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
Briggs, AH, O'Brien, BJ. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ. 2001;10:179–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonzalez-Perez, J. Developing a scoring system to quality assess economic evaluations. Eur J Health Econom. 2002;3:131–6. doi:10.1007/s10198-002-0100-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watts, RD, Li, IW. Use of checklists in reviews of health economic evaluations, 2010 to 2018. Value Health. 2019;22:377–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, SL, Abate, D, Abate, KH, Abay, SM, Abbafati, C, Abbasi, N, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2017. Lancet; 392:1789–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment. Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 2nd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 1997.Google Scholar
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.Google Scholar
Action, EJ, Heintz, E, Gerber-Grote, A, Ghabri, S, Hamers, FF, Rupel, VP, et al. Is there a European view on health economic evaluations? Results from a synopsis of methodological guidelines used in the EUnetHTA partner countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:59–76.Google Scholar
Edwards, RT, Charles, JM, Lloyd-Williams, H. Public health economics: A systematic review of guidance for the economic evaluation of public health interventions and discussion of key methodological issues. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weatherly, H, Drummond, M, Claxton, K, Cookson, R, Ferguson, B, Godfrey, C, et al. Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: Key challenges and recommendations. Health Policy. 2009;93:85–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, M, Weatherly, H, Claxton, K, Cookson, R, Ferguson, B, Godfrey, C, et al. Assessing the challenges of applying standard methods of economic evaluation to public health interventions. York: Public Health Research Consortium; 2007.Google Scholar
Philips, Z, Bojke, L, Sculpher, M, Claxton, K, Golder, S. Good practice guidelines for decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment: A review and consolidation of quality assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:355–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandey, P, Pandey, RD, Shah, V. Evaluation of quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in Asia-Pacific region and identification of influencing variables. Value Health Regional Issues. 2018;15:70–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tarride, JE, McCarron, CE, Lim, M, Bowen, JM, Blackhouse, G, Hopkins, R, et al. Economic evaluations conducted by Canadian health technology assessment agencies: Where do we stand? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Sharma et al. supplementary material

Sharma et al. supplementary material 1

Download Sharma et al. supplementary material(File)
File 40 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Sharma et al. supplementary material

Sharma et al. supplementary material 2

Download Sharma et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 250.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Sharma et al. supplementary material

Sharma et al. supplementary material 3

Download Sharma et al. supplementary material(File)
File 34.1 KB