埃塞俄比亚经济评估的特点和质量评估:系统回顾。

IF 2 Q2 ECONOMICS PharmacoEconomics Open Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-25 DOI:10.1007/s41669-023-00433-y
Bereket Bahiru Tefera, Desalegn Getnet Demsie, Adane Yehualaw, Chernet Tafere, Kebede Feyisa, Malede Berihun Yismaw, Belayneh Kefale, Zewdu Yilma
{"title":"埃塞俄比亚经济评估的特点和质量评估:系统回顾。","authors":"Bereket Bahiru Tefera, Desalegn Getnet Demsie, Adane Yehualaw, Chernet Tafere, Kebede Feyisa, Malede Berihun Yismaw, Belayneh Kefale, Zewdu Yilma","doi":"10.1007/s41669-023-00433-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health 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.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Various 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.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>The 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%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":19770,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10721755/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Characteristics and Quality Appraisal of the Economic Evaluations Done in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Bereket Bahiru Tefera, Desalegn Getnet Demsie, Adane Yehualaw, Chernet Tafere, Kebede Feyisa, Malede Berihun Yismaw, Belayneh Kefale, Zewdu Yilma\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41669-023-00433-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health 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.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Various 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.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>The 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%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10721755/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-023-00433-y\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-023-00433-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:卫生经济评价可确定、衡量、评价和比较各种替代战略,以有效分配稀缺资源。必须对经济评价的有效性、方法质量和可推广性进行评估,因为设计不当的研究会导致错误的结论。因此,本研究旨在使用卫生经济学研究质量(QHES)和卫生经济学评价综合报告标准(CHEERS)工具,对埃塞俄比亚已发表的经济学评价的质量和特点进行评估:方法:使用不同的关键词搜索各种电子数据库。我们仅收录了在埃塞俄比亚进行的、对至少两种健康干预措施的成本和后果进行评估的原创研究。摘要、治疗指南、综述、专家意见以及包括其他国家的研究均被排除在外。两名审稿人使用 QHES 和 CHEERS 工具对每项研究进行独立评估,如有分歧,则由第三名审稿人解决:结果:本研究共纳入了 2002 年至 2021 年间发表的 21 项研究。艾滋病是最常被评估的病症,21 项研究中有 4 项(19.06%)进行了检查。其中 17 项研究(80.95%)对医疗保健服务或项目进行了比较,另外 4 项研究对药品进行了检查。成本效用分析是 14 项研究(66.67%)使用的经济评估技术。在披露了资金来源的研究中,外国机构参与资助的占 71.43%。残疾调整生命年(DALY)是 9 项研究(42.86%)使用的结果指标。研究的平均 QHES 得分为 82%。14 项研究的 QHES 分数≥75%,2 项研究的分数为结论:我们的研究表明,埃塞俄比亚缺乏卫生经济评估,尤其是对非传染性疾病的评估。这表明埃塞俄比亚对医疗保健干预措施的经济评估仍处于早期阶段。此外,埃塞俄比亚机构在资助研究方面发挥的作用非常有限,这凸显了当地机构积极参与的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Characteristics and Quality Appraisal of the Economic Evaluations Done in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review.

Background: Health 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.

Methodology: Various 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.

Result: The 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%.

Conclusion: Our 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics - Open focuses on applied research on the economic implications and health outcomes associated with drugs, devices and other healthcare interventions. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas:Economic analysis of healthcare interventionsHealth outcomes researchCost-of-illness studiesQuality-of-life studiesAdditional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in PharmacoEconomics -Open may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
Costs of Adverse Events in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma with First-Line Treatment. Digital Versus Paper-Based Consent from the UK NHS Perspective: A Micro-costing Analysis. Correction: Cost-Effectiveness of Dupilumab and Oral Janus Kinase Inhibitors for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Singapore. Publisher Correction: Health Technology Assessment Reports for Non-Oncology Medications in Canada from 2018 to 2022: Methodological Critiques on Manufacturers' Submissions and a Comparison Between Manufacturer and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Analyses. Comparison of Two Financial Incentives to Encourage the Use of Adalimumab Biosimilars: Results of a French Experiment Close to Clinicians.
×
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