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
  • [41] A multi-criteria decision analysis perspective on the health economic evaluation of medical interventions
    Postmus, Douwe
    Tervonen, Tommi
    van Valkenhoef, Gert
    Hillege, Hans L.
    Buskens, Erik
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2014, 15 (07): : 709 - 716
  • [42] A multi-criteria decision analysis perspective on the health economic evaluation of medical interventions
    Douwe Postmus
    Tommi Tervonen
    Gert van Valkenhoef
    Hans L. Hillege
    Erik Buskens
    The European Journal of Health Economics, 2014, 15 : 709 - 716
  • [43] Health economic evaluation of treatments for Alzheimer's disease: impact of new diagnostic criteria
    Wimo, A.
    Ballard, C.
    Brayne, C.
    Gauthier, S.
    Handels, R.
    Jones, R. W.
    Jonsson, L.
    Khachaturian, A. S.
    Kramberger, M.
    JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2014, 275 (03) : 304 - 316
  • [44] DEVELOPING AN EVALUATION TOOL BY GROUP ACTION
    COCHRAN, TC
    HANSEN, PJ
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NURSING, 1962, 62 (03) : 94 - 97
  • [45] Developing a Common Evaluation Tool for Camps
    Lewis, Kendra M.
    Bird, Marianne
    Wilkins, Tamekia
    Borba, John
    Nathaniel, Keith
    Schoenfelder, Emily
    JOURNAL OF YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, 2018, 13 (1-2): : 306 - 315
  • [46] Health-related quality of life and economic evaluation of cardiac rehabilitation
    Oldridge, NB
    PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND CARDIOVASCULAR HEALTH: A NATIONAL CONSENSUS, 1997, : 183 - 190
  • [47] Assessment of the quality and trend of reporting of health economic evaluation research in India
    Karekar, Sonali
    Shetty, Yashashri
    EXPERT REVIEW OF PHARMACOECONOMICS & OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2021, 21 (04) : 595 - 599
  • [48] A framework for assessing Health Economic Evaluation (HEE) quality appraisal instruments
    Langer, Astrid
    BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2012, 12 : 253
  • [49] A Systematic Review of Scope and Quality of Health Economic Evaluation Studies in Vietnam
    Tran, Bach Xuan
    Nong, Vuong Minh
    Maher, Rachel Marie
    Nguyen, Phuong Khanh
    Luu, Hoat Ngoc
    PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (08):
  • [50] A framework for assessing Health Economic Evaluation (HEE) quality appraisal instruments
    Astrid Langer
    BMC Health Services Research, 12