Methods for health economic evaluation of complex interventions in healthcare: current practice, challenges and guidance for future research.

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Gesundheitswesen Pub Date : 2025-10-09 DOI:10.1055/a-2569-9765
Nadja Chernyak, Damon Mohebbi, Adrienne Alayli, Johann Behrens, Helene Eckhardt, Cornelia Henschke, Rolf Holle, Nadja Kairies-Schwarz, Sebastian Liersch, Ralph Möhler, Dirk Müller, Anja Neumann, Markus Vomhof, Ingrid Zechmeister-Koss, Juliane Köberlein-Neu, Andrea Icks
{"title":"Methods for health economic evaluation of complex interventions in healthcare: current practice, challenges and guidance for future research.","authors":"Nadja Chernyak, Damon Mohebbi, Adrienne Alayli, Johann Behrens, Helene Eckhardt, Cornelia Henschke, Rolf Holle, Nadja Kairies-Schwarz, Sebastian Liersch, Ralph Möhler, Dirk Müller, Anja Neumann, Markus Vomhof, Ingrid Zechmeister-Koss, Juliane Köberlein-Neu, Andrea Icks","doi":"10.1055/a-2569-9765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Health economic methods can support the development and evaluation of new healthcare interventions by generating data on the resources used and relating these to a defined benefit. However, the standard methodology of health economic evaluation that is usually used does not do justice to the high degree of complexity of interventions in healthcare. As a result, there is a lack of decision-relevant information, for example, on the preferences of the target group, on spillover effects on the part of carers, or on implementation costs and the role of different contexts in the implementation of interventions into routine care. The UK Medical Research Council's (MRC) standard-setting framework for complex interventions therefore emphasises the need to incorporate health economic aspects more strongly into all phases of the development and evaluation of complex interventions. To make this possible, the MRC's recommendations for expanding and adapting the standard methodology of health economic evaluation must be concretised and supplemented. Building on already established methodological procedures, recommendations should be developed and proposals for necessary further research formulated.</p>","PeriodicalId":47653,"journal":{"name":"Gesundheitswesen","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2569-9765","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Health economic methods can support the development and evaluation of new healthcare interventions by generating data on the resources used and relating these to a defined benefit. However, the standard methodology of health economic evaluation that is usually used does not do justice to the high degree of complexity of interventions in healthcare. As a result, there is a lack of decision-relevant information, for example, on the preferences of the target group, on spillover effects on the part of carers, or on implementation costs and the role of different contexts in the implementation of interventions into routine care. The UK Medical Research Council's (MRC) standard-setting framework for complex interventions therefore emphasises the need to incorporate health economic aspects more strongly into all phases of the development and evaluation of complex interventions. To make this possible, the MRC's recommendations for expanding and adapting the standard methodology of health economic evaluation must be concretised and supplemented. Building on already established methodological procedures, recommendations should be developed and proposals for necessary further research formulated.

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
[卫生保健复杂干预措施的卫生经济评价方法:当前实践、挑战和对未来研究的指导]。
卫生经济方法可以通过生成有关所使用资源的数据并将这些数据与确定的效益联系起来,从而支持新的卫生保健干预措施的开发和评估。然而,通常使用的卫生经济评估的标准方法不能公正地对待卫生保健干预措施的高度复杂性。因此,缺乏与决策相关的信息,例如,关于目标群体的偏好,关于护理者的溢出效应,或关于在日常护理中实施干预措施的实施成本和不同背景的作用。因此,联合王国医学研究理事会(MRC)制定复杂干预措施的标准框架强调需要将卫生经济方面更有力地纳入复杂干预措施发展和评估的所有阶段。为了实现这一目标,必须具体化和补充MRC关于扩大和调整卫生经济评估标准方法的建议。应在已确立的方法程序的基础上,拟订建议,并为必要的进一步研究拟订建议。
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
Gesundheitswesen
Gesundheitswesen PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
308
期刊介绍: The health service informs you comprehensively and up-to-date about the most important topics of the health care system. In addition to guidelines, overviews and comments, you will find current research results and contributions to CME-certified continuing education and training. The journal offers a scientific discussion forum and a platform for communications from professional societies. The content quality is ensured by a publisher body, the expert advisory board and other experts in the peer review process.
期刊最新文献
[Medical Delegation to Physician Assistants (PAs): Organizational Liability as the Primary Risk in Borderline Cases]. [Some thoughts on "Querdenken" yesterday and today - from the Berlin anti-Semitism controversy in the 19th century to "Querdenken" in the 21st century]. [Sektorenübergreifende Bewegungsversorgung - eine qualitative Studie zu den Aufgaben und Kompetenzen in der Netzwerkkoordination am Beispiel des Netzwerks ActiveOncoKids (NAOK)]. [Medical resource needs and telemedical potential in after-hours care: An exploratory survey among physicians]. [Correction: Challenges in Rehabilitation of People with Cognitive and/or Multiple Impairments: Insights from a Pilot 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:604180095
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