Developing Criteria for Health Economic Quality Evaluation Tool

被引:20
|
作者
Kim, David D. [1 ,8 ]
Do, Lauren A. [2 ]
Synnott, Patricia G. [2 ]
Lavelle, Tara A. [2 ,3 ]
Prosser, Lisa A. [4 ,5 ,6 ]
Wong, John B. [3 ,7 ]
Neumann, Peter J. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Chicago, Sect Hosp Med, Dept Med, Chicago, IL USA
[2] Inst Clin Res & Hlth Policy Studies, Ctr Evaluat Value & Risk Hlth CEVR, Tufts Med Ctr, Boston, MA USA
[3] Tufts Univ, Sch Med, Dept Med, Boston, MA USA
[4] Susan B Meister Child Hlth Evaluat & Res CHEAR Ctr, Michigan Med, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[5] Univ Michigan, Med Sch, Dept Pediat, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[6] Univ Michigan, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Management & Policy, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[7] Tufts Med Ctr, Div Clin Decis Making, Boston, MA USA
[8] Univ Chicago, Biol Sci Div & Coll, 5841 S Maryland Ave,MC 5000, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
关键词
cost-effectiveness; economic evaluations; evidence; priority setting; quality assessment; COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; LUNG-CANCER; RECOMMENDATIONS; PREFERENCES; GUIDELINES; CONDUCT;
D O I
10.1016/j.jval.2023.04.004
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Objectives: Because existing publication guidelines and checklists have limitations when used to assess the quality of cost-effectiveness analysis, we developed a novel quality assessment tool for cost-effectiveness analyses, differentiating methods and reporting quality and incorporating the relative importance of different quality attributes.Methods: We defined 15 quality domains from a scoping review and identified 72 methods and reporting quality attributes (36 each). After designing a best-worst scaling survey, we fielded an online survey to researchers and practitioners to estimate the relative importance of the attributes in February 2021. We analyzed the survey data using a sequential conditional logit model. The final tool included 48 quality attributes deemed most important for assessing methods and reporting quality (24 each), accompanied by a free and web-based scoring system.Results: A total of 524 participants completed the methodology section, and 372 completed both methodology and reporting sections. Quality attributes pertaining to the "modeling" and "data inputs and evidence synthesis" domains were deemed most important for methods quality, including "structure of the model reflects the underlying condition and intervention's impact" and "model validation is conducted." Quality attributes pertaining to "modeling" and "Intervention/comparator(s)" domains were considered most important for reporting quality, including "model descriptions are detailed enough for replication." Despite its growing prominence, "equity considerations" were not deemed as important as other quality attributes.Conclusions: The Criteria for Health Economic Quality Evaluation tool allows users to differentiate methods and reporting as well as quantifies the relative importance of quality attributes. Alongside other considerations, it could help assess and improve the quality of cost-effectiveness evidence to inform value-based decisions.
引用
收藏
页码:1225 / 1234
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [11] Health economic evaluation Prioritization Criteria in the German Discussion Prioritization
    Stumpf, S.
    GESUNDHEITSWESEN, 2012, 74 (8-9) : 592 - 592
  • [12] Developing a health economic evaluation database in Japan: JEED project
    Fukuda, T
    Tsutani, K
    Kobayashi, Y
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2003, 6 (03) : 296 - 296
  • [13] Economic evaluation as a decision-making tool in health care
    Araja, D.
    3RD INTERNATIONAL INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE ON SOCIETY. HEALTH. WELFARE - 1ST CONGRESS OF REHABILITATION DOCTORS OF LATVIA, 2012, 2
  • [14] Developing evaluation criteria for podcasts
    Austria, Joy L.
    LIBRI, 2007, 57 (04): : 179 - 208
  • [15] Developing and validating a content quality evaluation tool for cancer mobile applications
    Ashkani, Najmeh
    Erfannia, Leila
    Rezaee, Rita
    Savareh, Behrouz Alizadeh
    Bashiri, Azadeh
    BMC CANCER, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [16] Health indicators, quality of life measures and economic evaluation
    Frossard, M
    Mosqueda, GJ
    Suarez, C
    Couturier, P
    Guyot, F
    Franco, A
    SCIENCES SOCIALES ET SANTE, 1999, 17 (04): : 45 - 64
  • [17] Economic evaluation and health-related quality of life
    Calaminus, Gabriele
    Barr, Ronald
    PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER, 2008, 50 (05) : 1112 - 1115
  • [18] DEVELOPING A TOOL FOR THE DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF THE FUNCTIONS AND PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES IN EUROPE
    Martin Moreno, J. M.
    Fernandez Gimenez, A.
    Garcia Lopez, E.
    Harris, M.
    Gorgojo Jimenez, L.
    GACETA SANITARIA, 2009, 23 : 152 - 152
  • [19] Developing a Cross-Site Evaluation Tool for Diverse Health Interventions
    Kruger, Daniel J.
    Morrel-Samuels, Susan
    Davis-Satterla, Loretta
    Harris-Ellis, Barbara J.
    Slonim, Amy
    HEALTH PROMOTION PRACTICE, 2010, 11 (04) : 555 - 561
  • [20] DEVELOPING NATIONAL SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA
    SHEA, D
    ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 1988, 22 (11) : 1256 - 1261