在价值评估框架中考虑健康差异。

IF 2.1 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2024-09-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CEOR.S471855
Dominique Seo, Divya Patil, Joe Vandigo, T Joseph Mattingly
{"title":"在价值评估框架中考虑健康差异。","authors":"Dominique Seo, Divya Patil, Joe Vandigo, T Joseph Mattingly","doi":"10.2147/CEOR.S471855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) compares interventions based on relative value and is an integral part of value assessment. Despite recommendations for economists to consider disparities in CEAs that impact health-care resource allocation decisions, the perception held by stakeholders is that value assessment frameworks are inconsistent in practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed value assessment reports produced by a United States (US)-based value assessment organization to identify how patients and caregiver input may contribute to how the organization considers health disparities. We purposefully extracted and categorized information relevant to health disparities from report sections on Patient and Caregiver Perspectives and Contextual Considerations and Other Potential Benefits to represent the data acknowledged by the organization's patient engagement efforts. We conducted a thematic analysis of the text in these sections and mapped to a health disparities framework endorsed by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen evidence reports were included in our analysis. We identified 30 equity-related themes from external stakeholder perspectives or acknowledged in the report and 17 equity-related themes that reflect the actions taken by the economic model developers to address health disparities as a formal part of the CEA. We found examples of the value assessment organization explicitly considering health disparities in cost-effectiveness estimates. However, explicit considerations were not consistent across reports and were not necessarily aligned with patient and caregiver input during model development or consistent with the organization's own contextual considerations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings highlight the need for a systematic approach for the consideration of health disparities within a value assessment framework and more transparency around how final cost-effectiveness approaches are determined.</p>","PeriodicalId":47313,"journal":{"name":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11446197/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consideration for Health Disparities in Value Assessment Frameworks.\",\"authors\":\"Dominique Seo, Divya Patil, Joe Vandigo, T Joseph Mattingly\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/CEOR.S471855\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) compares interventions based on relative value and is an integral part of value assessment. Despite recommendations for economists to consider disparities in CEAs that impact health-care resource allocation decisions, the perception held by stakeholders is that value assessment frameworks are inconsistent in practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed value assessment reports produced by a United States (US)-based value assessment organization to identify how patients and caregiver input may contribute to how the organization considers health disparities. We purposefully extracted and categorized information relevant to health disparities from report sections on Patient and Caregiver Perspectives and Contextual Considerations and Other Potential Benefits to represent the data acknowledged by the organization's patient engagement efforts. We conducted a thematic analysis of the text in these sections and mapped to a health disparities framework endorsed by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen evidence reports were included in our analysis. We identified 30 equity-related themes from external stakeholder perspectives or acknowledged in the report and 17 equity-related themes that reflect the actions taken by the economic model developers to address health disparities as a formal part of the CEA. We found examples of the value assessment organization explicitly considering health disparities in cost-effectiveness estimates. However, explicit considerations were not consistent across reports and were not necessarily aligned with patient and caregiver input during model development or consistent with the organization's own contextual considerations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings highlight the need for a systematic approach for the consideration of health disparities within a value assessment framework and more transparency around how final cost-effectiveness approaches are determined.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11446197/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S471855\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S471855","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:成本效益分析(CEA)根据相对价值对干预措施进行比较,是价值评估不可分割的一部分。尽管建议经济学家在影响医疗资源分配决策的成本效益分析中考虑差异,但利益相关者认为价值评估框架在实践中并不一致:我们审查了美国一家价值评估机构编制的价值评估报告,以确定患者和护理人员的意见如何有助于该机构考虑健康差异。我们有目的地从报告中的 "患者和护理者视角"、"背景考虑因素和其他潜在益处 "等章节中提取与健康差异相关的信息并进行分类,以代表该组织的患者参与工作所认可的数据。我们对这些部分的内容进行了专题分析,并将其与美国国家少数民族健康与健康差异研究所(NIMHD)认可的健康差异框架进行了比对:我们的分析包括 19 份证据报告。我们从外部利益相关者的视角或报告中确认的角度确定了 30 个与公平相关的主题,并确定了 17 个与公平相关的主题,这些主题反映了经济模型开发者为解决健康差异问题所采取的行动,是 CEA 的正式组成部分。我们发现了价值评估机构在成本效益估算中明确考虑健康差异的例子。然而,各报告中明确考虑的因素并不一致,也不一定与模型开发过程中患者和护理人员的意见相一致,或与组织自身的背景因素相一致:我们的研究结果凸显了在价值评估框架内考虑健康差异的系统性方法的必要性,以及在如何确定最终成本效益方法方面提高透明度的必要性。
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
Consideration for Health Disparities in Value Assessment Frameworks.

Background: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) compares interventions based on relative value and is an integral part of value assessment. Despite recommendations for economists to consider disparities in CEAs that impact health-care resource allocation decisions, the perception held by stakeholders is that value assessment frameworks are inconsistent in practice.

Methods: We reviewed value assessment reports produced by a United States (US)-based value assessment organization to identify how patients and caregiver input may contribute to how the organization considers health disparities. We purposefully extracted and categorized information relevant to health disparities from report sections on Patient and Caregiver Perspectives and Contextual Considerations and Other Potential Benefits to represent the data acknowledged by the organization's patient engagement efforts. We conducted a thematic analysis of the text in these sections and mapped to a health disparities framework endorsed by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD).

Results: Nineteen evidence reports were included in our analysis. We identified 30 equity-related themes from external stakeholder perspectives or acknowledged in the report and 17 equity-related themes that reflect the actions taken by the economic model developers to address health disparities as a formal part of the CEA. We found examples of the value assessment organization explicitly considering health disparities in cost-effectiveness estimates. However, explicit considerations were not consistent across reports and were not necessarily aligned with patient and caregiver input during model development or consistent with the organization's own contextual considerations.

Conclusion: Our findings highlight the need for a systematic approach for the consideration of health disparities within a value assessment framework and more transparency around how final cost-effectiveness approaches are determined.

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
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
83
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Economic Impact of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease (MASLD) in Italy. Analysis and Perspectives. Evaluating Service Satisfaction and Sustainability of the Afya Health Insurance Scheme in Kuwait: An Exploratory Analysis [Letter]. Estimating Costs Associated with Adverse Events in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer. Economic Burden, Length of Hospital Stay and Complication of Simultaneous versus Staged Bilateral Hip Arthroplasty: A Hospital Prospective Study. Cost Analysis of Pure Hypochlorous Acid Preserved Wound Cleanser versus Mafenide for the Irrigation of Burn Wounds.
×
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