Health technology assessment to support health benefits package design: a systematic review of economic evaluation evidence in Zambia.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-11914-z
Warren Mukelabai Simangolwa, Kaymarlin Govender, Josue Mbonigaba
{"title":"Health technology assessment to support health benefits package design: a systematic review of economic evaluation evidence in Zambia.","authors":"Warren Mukelabai Simangolwa, Kaymarlin Govender, Josue Mbonigaba","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11914-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health technology assessment uses explicit economic evaluation evidence to support health benefits package design. However, the limited availability of technical expertise, data, and methods has restricted the production of economic evaluation evidence in low- and middle-income countries. Zambia has initiated a roadmap to support its policy of reviewing and implementing its national benefits package. This study characterises economic evaluation evidence to support this process's evidence mapping, synthesis, and appraisal stages.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review applies deductive analysis and the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses. Four databases were searched to identify studies from 1993 that coincided with Zambia's health benefits package reform.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 61 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were first authored by nonlocal authors, and the number of local-based authors in each study was low. Almost all funding for economic evaluation research was not local, and only a few studies sought local ethical clearance to conduct research. Infectious diseases were the highest disease control priority for the studies, with HIV research having the highest output. Most of the studies were cost-effectiveness studies that utilised trial-based data and a combination of program, published, and unpublished data for analysis. The studies generally utilised direct cost and applied the ingredient-based costing approach. Natural units were predominantly used for outcomes alongside DALYs. Most studies reported using a 3% discount rate for both costs and outcomes, with only a few reporting methods for sensitivity analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Economic evaluation evidence in Zambia has increased, revealing limited local research leadership, methodological inconsistencies, and a focus on infectious diseases. These findings are crucial for revising Zambia's benefits package and may guide researchers and decision-makers in improving the transparency and quality of future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"24 1","pages":"1426"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11572362/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11914-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Health technology assessment uses explicit economic evaluation evidence to support health benefits package design. However, the limited availability of technical expertise, data, and methods has restricted the production of economic evaluation evidence in low- and middle-income countries. Zambia has initiated a roadmap to support its policy of reviewing and implementing its national benefits package. This study characterises economic evaluation evidence to support this process's evidence mapping, synthesis, and appraisal stages.

Methods: This systematic review applies deductive analysis and the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses. Four databases were searched to identify studies from 1993 that coincided with Zambia's health benefits package reform.

Results: A total of 61 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were first authored by nonlocal authors, and the number of local-based authors in each study was low. Almost all funding for economic evaluation research was not local, and only a few studies sought local ethical clearance to conduct research. Infectious diseases were the highest disease control priority for the studies, with HIV research having the highest output. Most of the studies were cost-effectiveness studies that utilised trial-based data and a combination of program, published, and unpublished data for analysis. The studies generally utilised direct cost and applied the ingredient-based costing approach. Natural units were predominantly used for outcomes alongside DALYs. Most studies reported using a 3% discount rate for both costs and outcomes, with only a few reporting methods for sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion: Economic evaluation evidence in Zambia has increased, revealing limited local research leadership, methodological inconsistencies, and a focus on infectious diseases. These findings are crucial for revising Zambia's benefits package and may guide researchers and decision-makers in improving the transparency and quality of future research.

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
支持健康福利包设计的卫生技术评估:赞比亚经济评估证据的系统回顾。
背景:卫生技术评估使用明确的经济评估证据来支持卫生福利包的设计。然而,由于专业技术、数据和方法的有限性,中低收入国家的经济评估证据的产生受到了限制。赞比亚已经启动了一个路线图,以支持其审查和实施国家福利包的政策。本研究描述了经济评估证据的特点,以支持该过程的证据映射、综合和评估阶段:本系统综述采用了演绎分析法以及系统综述和荟萃分析的首选报告项目。对四个数据库进行了检索,以确定 1993 年以来与赞比亚医疗福利一揽子方案改革相吻合的研究:共有 61 项研究符合纳入标准。大多数研究的第一作者为非本地作者,每项研究中本地作者的数量较少。几乎所有经济评估研究的资金都不是本地的,只有少数研究在开展研究时寻求了本地的伦理许可。传染病是这些研究最优先考虑的疾病控制问题,其中艾滋病毒研究的产出最高。大多数研究都是成本效益研究,利用基于试验的数据以及计划、已公布和未公布的数据进行分析。这些研究通常使用直接成本,并采用基于成分的成本计算方法。结果主要使用自然单位和残疾调整寿命年数。大多数研究报告称,成本和结果都使用了 3% 的贴现率,只有少数研究报告了敏感性分析方法:赞比亚的经济评估证据有所增加,揭示了当地研究领导力有限、方法不一致以及对传染病的关注。这些发现对于修订赞比亚的一揽子福利计划至关重要,并可指导研究人员和决策者提高未来研究的透明度和质量。
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
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the experiences of resident doctors in child and adolescent psychiatry with virtual reality-based simulation training: a qualitative study. Distribution and predictors of haemophilia-related costs in the United Kingdom: analysis of the CHESS I and CHESS II burden of illness studies. Negotiating care in organizational borderlands: a grounded theory of inter-organizational collaboration in coordination of care. Equity and efficiency of health resource allocation in Sichuan Province, China. How to assess doctor managers' managerial attitude: results from an e-Delphi process.
×
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