健康效用评估及其在美国艾滋病预防中的应用:成本效益模型和未来研究需求的含义。

IF 1.9 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES MDM Policy and Practice Pub Date : 2020-08-01 eCollection Date: 2020-07-01 DOI:10.1177/2381468320936219
Hilary K Whitham, Angela B Hutchinson, Ram K Shrestha, Miriam Kuppermann, Birgit Grund, R Luke Shouse, Stephanie L Sansom
{"title":"健康效用评估及其在美国艾滋病预防中的应用:成本效益模型和未来研究需求的含义。","authors":"Hilary K Whitham,&nbsp;Angela B Hutchinson,&nbsp;Ram K Shrestha,&nbsp;Miriam Kuppermann,&nbsp;Birgit Grund,&nbsp;R Luke Shouse,&nbsp;Stephanie L Sansom","doi":"10.1177/2381468320936219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives.</b> Health utility estimates from the current era of HIV treatment, critical for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) informing HIV health policy, are limited. We examined peer-reviewed literature to assess the appropriateness of commonly referenced utilities, present previously unreported quality-of-life data from two studies, and discuss future implications for HIV-related CEA. <b>Methods.</b> We searched a database of cost-effectiveness analyses specific to HIV prevention efforts from 1999 to 2016 to identify the most commonly referenced sources for health utilities and to examine practices around using and reporting health utility data. Additionally, we present new utility estimates from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention's Medical Monitoring Project (MMP) and the INSIGHT Strategies for Management of Anti-Retroviral Therapy (SMART) trial. We compare data collection time frames, sample characteristics, assessment methods, and key estimates. <b>Results.</b> Data collection for the most frequently cited utility estimates ranged from 1985 to 1997, predating modern HIV treatment. Reporting practices around utility weights are poor and lack details on participant characteristics, which may be important stratifying factors for CEA. More recent utility estimates derived from MMP and SMART were similar across CD4+ count strata and had a narrower range than pre-antiretroviral therapy (ART) utilities. <b>Conclusions.</b> Despite the widespread use of ART, cost-effectiveness analysis of HIV prevention interventions frequently apply pre-ART health utility weights. Use of utility weights reflecting the current state of the US epidemic are needed to best inform HIV research and public policy decisions. Improved practices around the selection, application, and reporting of health utility data used in HIV prevention CEA are needed to improve transparency.</p>","PeriodicalId":36567,"journal":{"name":"MDM Policy and Practice","volume":"5 2","pages":"2381468320936219"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2381468320936219","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health Utility Estimates and Their Application to HIV Prevention in the United States: Implications for Cost-Effectiveness Modeling and Future Research Needs.\",\"authors\":\"Hilary K Whitham,&nbsp;Angela B Hutchinson,&nbsp;Ram K Shrestha,&nbsp;Miriam Kuppermann,&nbsp;Birgit Grund,&nbsp;R Luke Shouse,&nbsp;Stephanie L Sansom\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2381468320936219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objectives.</b> Health utility estimates from the current era of HIV treatment, critical for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) informing HIV health policy, are limited. We examined peer-reviewed literature to assess the appropriateness of commonly referenced utilities, present previously unreported quality-of-life data from two studies, and discuss future implications for HIV-related CEA. <b>Methods.</b> We searched a database of cost-effectiveness analyses specific to HIV prevention efforts from 1999 to 2016 to identify the most commonly referenced sources for health utilities and to examine practices around using and reporting health utility data. Additionally, we present new utility estimates from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention's Medical Monitoring Project (MMP) and the INSIGHT Strategies for Management of Anti-Retroviral Therapy (SMART) trial. We compare data collection time frames, sample characteristics, assessment methods, and key estimates. <b>Results.</b> Data collection for the most frequently cited utility estimates ranged from 1985 to 1997, predating modern HIV treatment. Reporting practices around utility weights are poor and lack details on participant characteristics, which may be important stratifying factors for CEA. More recent utility estimates derived from MMP and SMART were similar across CD4+ count strata and had a narrower range than pre-antiretroviral therapy (ART) utilities. <b>Conclusions.</b> Despite the widespread use of ART, cost-effectiveness analysis of HIV prevention interventions frequently apply pre-ART health utility weights. Use of utility weights reflecting the current state of the US epidemic are needed to best inform HIV research and public policy decisions. Improved practices around the selection, application, and reporting of health utility data used in HIV prevention CEA are needed to improve transparency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36567,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MDM Policy and Practice\",\"volume\":\"5 2\",\"pages\":\"2381468320936219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2381468320936219\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MDM Policy and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468320936219\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM Policy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2381468320936219","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

目标。当前艾滋病毒治疗时代的卫生效用估计是有限的,这对于为艾滋病毒卫生政策提供信息的成本效益分析(CEA)至关重要。我们检查了同行评议的文献,以评估常用实用工具的适用性,提出了两项研究中以前未报道的生活质量数据,并讨论了hiv相关CEA的未来含义。方法。我们检索了1999年至2016年艾滋病毒预防工作的成本效益分析数据库,以确定卫生公用事业最常引用的来源,并检查有关使用和报告卫生公用事业数据的实践。此外,我们提出了来自疾病控制和预防中心医疗监测项目(MMP)和INSIGHT抗逆转录病毒治疗管理策略(SMART)试验的新的效用估计。我们比较了数据收集时间框架、样本特征、评估方法和关键估计。结果。最常被引用的效用估计的数据收集时间为1985年至1997年,即现代艾滋病毒治疗之前。围绕效用权重的报告实践很差,缺乏参与者特征的细节,这可能是CEA的重要分层因素。最近由MMP和SMART得出的效用估计在CD4+计数层中相似,其范围比抗逆转录病毒治疗(ART)前的效用范围更窄。结论。尽管广泛使用抗逆转录病毒治疗,但艾滋病毒预防干预措施的成本效益分析经常采用抗逆转录病毒治疗前的卫生效用权重。需要使用反映美国流行病现状的效用权重,以便最好地为艾滋病毒研究和公共政策决策提供信息。需要在艾滋病毒预防CEA中使用的卫生效用数据的选择、应用和报告方面改进实践,以提高透明度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Health Utility Estimates and Their Application to HIV Prevention in the United States: Implications for Cost-Effectiveness Modeling and Future Research Needs.

Objectives. Health utility estimates from the current era of HIV treatment, critical for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) informing HIV health policy, are limited. We examined peer-reviewed literature to assess the appropriateness of commonly referenced utilities, present previously unreported quality-of-life data from two studies, and discuss future implications for HIV-related CEA. Methods. We searched a database of cost-effectiveness analyses specific to HIV prevention efforts from 1999 to 2016 to identify the most commonly referenced sources for health utilities and to examine practices around using and reporting health utility data. Additionally, we present new utility estimates from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention's Medical Monitoring Project (MMP) and the INSIGHT Strategies for Management of Anti-Retroviral Therapy (SMART) trial. We compare data collection time frames, sample characteristics, assessment methods, and key estimates. Results. Data collection for the most frequently cited utility estimates ranged from 1985 to 1997, predating modern HIV treatment. Reporting practices around utility weights are poor and lack details on participant characteristics, which may be important stratifying factors for CEA. More recent utility estimates derived from MMP and SMART were similar across CD4+ count strata and had a narrower range than pre-antiretroviral therapy (ART) utilities. Conclusions. Despite the widespread use of ART, cost-effectiveness analysis of HIV prevention interventions frequently apply pre-ART health utility weights. Use of utility weights reflecting the current state of the US epidemic are needed to best inform HIV research and public policy decisions. Improved practices around the selection, application, and reporting of health utility data used in HIV prevention CEA are needed to improve transparency.

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
MDM Policy and Practice
MDM Policy and Practice Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Prioritizing Patients from the Most Deprived Areas on Elective Waiting Lists in the NHS in England: Estimating the Health and Health Inequality Impact. Optimizing Masks and Random Screening Test Usage within K-12 Schools. Associations of Concordant and Shared Lung Cancer Screening Decision Making with Decisional Conflict: A Multi-Institution Cross-Sectional Analysis. Implications of Diminishing Lifespan Marginal Utility for Valuing Equity in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Evaluation of the Soda Tax on Obesity and Diabetes in California: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
×
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