What methods are currently available for incorporating implementation considerations within the economic evaluation of health technologies? A scoping review.

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Research Policy and Systems Pub Date : 2024-09-30 DOI:10.1186/s12961-024-01220-9
Robert Heggie, Kathleen Boyd, Hanin Kamaruzaman, Olivia Wu
{"title":"What methods are currently available for incorporating implementation considerations within the economic evaluation of health technologies? A scoping review.","authors":"Robert Heggie, Kathleen Boyd, Hanin Kamaruzaman, Olivia Wu","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01220-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When clinically effective, cost-effective health interventions are not fully implemented in clinical practice, population health suffers. Economic factors are among the most commonly cited reasons for suboptimal implementation. Despite this, implementation and economic evaluation are not routinely performed in conjunction with one another. This review sought to identify and describe what methods are available for researchers to incorporate implementation within economic evaluation, how these methods differ, when they should be used, and where gaps remain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review using systematic methods. A pearl-growing approach was used to identify studies. References and citations were identified using Web of Science and Scopus. We included for review any study that contained terms relating to economic evaluation and a series of implementation-related terms in the title or abstract. The search was conducted and validated using two independent researchers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our review identified 42 unique studies that included a methodology for combining implementation and economic evaluation. The methods identified could be categorized into four broad themes: (i) policy cost-effectiveness approach (11 studies), (ii) value of information and value of implementation approach (16 studies), (iii) mixed methods approach (6 studies), and (iv) costing approach (9 studies). We identified a trend over time from methods that adopted the policy cost-effectiveness approach to methods that considered the trade-off between the value of information and value of implementation. More recently, mixed methods approaches to incorporate economic evaluation and implementation have been developed, alongside methods to define, measure and cost individual components of the implementation process for use in economic evaluation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our review identified a range of methods currently available for researchers considering implementation alongside economic evaluation. There is no single method or tool that can incorporate all the relevant issues to fully incorporate implementation within an economic evaluation. Instead, there are a suite of tools available, each of which can be used to answer a specific question relating to implementation. Researchers, reimbursement agencies and national and local decision-makers need to consider how best to utilize these tools to improve implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"134"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11441006/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01220-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: When clinically effective, cost-effective health interventions are not fully implemented in clinical practice, population health suffers. Economic factors are among the most commonly cited reasons for suboptimal implementation. Despite this, implementation and economic evaluation are not routinely performed in conjunction with one another. This review sought to identify and describe what methods are available for researchers to incorporate implementation within economic evaluation, how these methods differ, when they should be used, and where gaps remain.

Methods: We conducted a scoping review using systematic methods. A pearl-growing approach was used to identify studies. References and citations were identified using Web of Science and Scopus. We included for review any study that contained terms relating to economic evaluation and a series of implementation-related terms in the title or abstract. The search was conducted and validated using two independent researchers.

Results: Our review identified 42 unique studies that included a methodology for combining implementation and economic evaluation. The methods identified could be categorized into four broad themes: (i) policy cost-effectiveness approach (11 studies), (ii) value of information and value of implementation approach (16 studies), (iii) mixed methods approach (6 studies), and (iv) costing approach (9 studies). We identified a trend over time from methods that adopted the policy cost-effectiveness approach to methods that considered the trade-off between the value of information and value of implementation. More recently, mixed methods approaches to incorporate economic evaluation and implementation have been developed, alongside methods to define, measure and cost individual components of the implementation process for use in economic evaluation.

Conclusion: Our review identified a range of methods currently available for researchers considering implementation alongside economic evaluation. There is no single method or tool that can incorporate all the relevant issues to fully incorporate implementation within an economic evaluation. Instead, there are a suite of tools available, each of which can be used to answer a specific question relating to implementation. Researchers, reimbursement agencies and national and local decision-makers need to consider how best to utilize these tools to improve implementation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
目前有哪些方法可用于将实施因素纳入卫生技术经济评估?范围审查。
背景:如果在临床实践中没有充分实施临床有效、成本效益高的健康干预措施,就会损害人群健康。经济因素是导致实施效果不佳的最常见原因之一。尽管如此,实施和经济评估并不是经常同时进行的。本综述旨在确定并描述研究人员可采用哪些方法将实施纳入经济评估、这些方法有何不同、何时应使用这些方法以及仍存在哪些差距:我们采用系统方法进行了范围界定研究。我们采用了 "珍珠生长法 "来确定研究。使用 Web of Science 和 Scopus 查找参考文献和引文。我们纳入了标题或摘要中包含经济评估相关术语和一系列实施相关术语的任何研究进行审查。搜索由两名独立研究人员进行并验证:我们的研究发现了 42 项独特的研究,其中包括将实施与经济评估相结合的方法。所确定的方法可分为四大主题:(i) 政策成本效益方法(11 项研究),(ii) 信息价值和实施价值方法(16 项研究),(iii) 混合方法(6 项研究),以及 (iv) 成本计算方法(9 项研究)。我们发现,随着时间的推移,出现了从采用政策成本效益方法到考虑信息价值和实施价值之间权衡的方法的趋势。最近,还开发了将经济评估与实施相结合的混合方法,以及对实施过程中的各个环节进行定义、测量和成本计算的方法,以用于经济评估:我们的综述为研究人员在考虑经济评估的同时考虑实施问题提供了一系列方法。没有一种单一的方法或工具可以将所有相关问题都纳入经济评估中。取而代之的是一系列可用的工具,每种工具都可以用来回答与实施相关的特定问题。研究人员、报销机构以及国家和地方决策者需要考虑如何最好地利用这些工具来改善实施情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
期刊最新文献
Leveraging international stakeholders' experiences with oral PrEP costs to accelerate implementation of the monthly dapivirine vaginal ring: A qualitative study. The embedded research model: an answer to the research and evaluation needs of community service organizations? Implementation of national policies and interventions (WHO Best Buys) for non-communicable disease prevention and control in Ghana: a mixed methods analysis. Policy impact of the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team: global perspective and United Kingdom case study. Real-world data to improve organ and tissue donation policies: lessons learned from the tissue and organ donor epidemiology study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1