Peter Murphy, Sebastian Hinde, Helen Fulbright, Louise Padgett, Gerry Richardson
{"title":"评估英国儿童早期公共卫生干预措施的金钱价值的方法:系统的文献综述。","authors":"Peter Murphy, Sebastian Hinde, Helen Fulbright, Louise Padgett, Gerry Richardson","doi":"10.1093/bmb/ldac035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Economic evaluation has an important role to play in the demonstration of value for money of early childhood public health interventions; however, concerns have been raised regarding their consistent application and relevance to commissioners. This systematic review of the literature therefore aims to collate the breadth of the existing economic evaluation evidence of these interventions and to identify the approaches adopted in the assessment of value.</p><p><strong>Source of data: </strong>Recently published literature in Medline, EMBASE, EconLit, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment, NHS EED and Web of Science.</p><p><strong>Areas of agreement: </strong>The importance of the early childhood period on future health and well-being as well as the potential to impact health inequalities making for a strong narrative case for expenditure in early childhood public health.</p><p><strong>Areas of controversy: </strong>The most appropriate approaches to evaluating value for money of such preventative interventions relevant for UK decision-makers given the evident challenges.</p><p><strong>Growing points: </strong>The presented review considered inconsistencies across methodological approaches used to demonstrate value for money. The results showed a mixed picture in terms of demonstrating value for money.</p><p><strong>Areas timely for developing research: </strong>Future resource allocations decisions regarding early childhood public health interventions may benefit from consistency in the evaluative frameworks and health outcomes captured, as well as consistency in approaches to incorporating non-health costs and outcomes, incorporating equity concerns and the use of appropriate time horizons.</p>","PeriodicalId":9280,"journal":{"name":"British medical bulletin","volume":"145 1","pages":"88-109"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10075243/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methods of assessing value for money of UK-based early childhood public health interventions: a systematic literature review.\",\"authors\":\"Peter Murphy, Sebastian Hinde, Helen Fulbright, Louise Padgett, Gerry Richardson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/bmb/ldac035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Economic evaluation has an important role to play in the demonstration of value for money of early childhood public health interventions; however, concerns have been raised regarding their consistent application and relevance to commissioners. This systematic review of the literature therefore aims to collate the breadth of the existing economic evaluation evidence of these interventions and to identify the approaches adopted in the assessment of value.</p><p><strong>Source of data: </strong>Recently published literature in Medline, EMBASE, EconLit, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment, NHS EED and Web of Science.</p><p><strong>Areas of agreement: </strong>The importance of the early childhood period on future health and well-being as well as the potential to impact health inequalities making for a strong narrative case for expenditure in early childhood public health.</p><p><strong>Areas of controversy: </strong>The most appropriate approaches to evaluating value for money of such preventative interventions relevant for UK decision-makers given the evident challenges.</p><p><strong>Growing points: </strong>The presented review considered inconsistencies across methodological approaches used to demonstrate value for money. The results showed a mixed picture in terms of demonstrating value for money.</p><p><strong>Areas timely for developing research: </strong>Future resource allocations decisions regarding early childhood public health interventions may benefit from consistency in the evaluative frameworks and health outcomes captured, as well as consistency in approaches to incorporating non-health costs and outcomes, incorporating equity concerns and the use of appropriate time horizons.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9280,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British medical bulletin\",\"volume\":\"145 1\",\"pages\":\"88-109\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10075243/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British medical bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldac035\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British medical bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldac035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导言:经济评价在证明幼儿公共卫生干预措施物有所值方面可发挥重要作用;然而,人们对它们的一贯适用和与专员的相关性提出了关切。因此,对文献的系统回顾旨在整理这些干预措施的现有经济评估证据的广度,并确定在价值评估中采用的方法。数据来源:最近发表在Medline、EMBASE、EconLit、健康管理信息联盟、Cochrane CENTRAL、Cochrane系统评价数据库、卫生技术评估、NHS EED和Web of Science上的文献。一致同意的领域:幼儿期对未来健康和福祉的重要性以及影响健康不平等的潜力,为幼儿期公共卫生支出提供了强有力的理由。争议领域:考虑到明显的挑战,评估这种预防性干预措施的资金价值的最适当方法与英国决策者相关。成长要点:提出的审查考虑了用于证明物有所值的方法方法之间的不一致性。结果显示,在证明物有所值方面,情况好坏参半。及时开展研究的领域:今后关于幼儿公共卫生干预措施的资源分配决定可能受益于评价框架和所收集的卫生成果的一致性,以及纳入非卫生费用和成果、纳入公平问题和使用适当时间范围的方法的一致性。
Methods of assessing value for money of UK-based early childhood public health interventions: a systematic literature review.
Introduction: Economic evaluation has an important role to play in the demonstration of value for money of early childhood public health interventions; however, concerns have been raised regarding their consistent application and relevance to commissioners. This systematic review of the literature therefore aims to collate the breadth of the existing economic evaluation evidence of these interventions and to identify the approaches adopted in the assessment of value.
Source of data: Recently published literature in Medline, EMBASE, EconLit, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment, NHS EED and Web of Science.
Areas of agreement: The importance of the early childhood period on future health and well-being as well as the potential to impact health inequalities making for a strong narrative case for expenditure in early childhood public health.
Areas of controversy: The most appropriate approaches to evaluating value for money of such preventative interventions relevant for UK decision-makers given the evident challenges.
Growing points: The presented review considered inconsistencies across methodological approaches used to demonstrate value for money. The results showed a mixed picture in terms of demonstrating value for money.
Areas timely for developing research: Future resource allocations decisions regarding early childhood public health interventions may benefit from consistency in the evaluative frameworks and health outcomes captured, as well as consistency in approaches to incorporating non-health costs and outcomes, incorporating equity concerns and the use of appropriate time horizons.
期刊介绍:
British Medical Bulletin is a multidisciplinary publication, which comprises high quality reviews aimed at generalist physicians, junior doctors, and medical students in both developed and developing countries.
Its key aims are to provide interpretations of growing points in medicine by trusted experts in the field, and to assist practitioners in incorporating not just evidence but new conceptual ways of thinking into their practice.