A synthesis of cost-utility analysis literature in infectious disease

Schackman, Bruce R.; Neukermans, Christopher P.; Olchanski, Natalia; Greenberg, Dan; Rosen, Allison B.; Neumann, Peter J.

doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(05)70142-0

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To make a policy case for additional investment in infection control interventions or changes in reimbursement practices, many more quality cost-effectiveness analyses must be completed and published. 8 Thus, a business case for infection control requires both the use of existing literature to make optimal decisions at an individual institutional level and support for the completion of additional cost-effectiveness analyses to guide future societal decisions and improve public health.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Raising Standards While Watching the Bottom Line Making a Business Case for Infection Control

Perencevich

Stone

Wright

et al. 2007

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While society would benefit from a reduced incidence of nosocomial infections, there is currently no direct reimbursement to hospitals for the purpose of infection control, which forces healthcare institutions to make economic decisions about funding infection control activities. Demonstrating value to administrators is an increasingly important function of the hospital epidemiologist because healthcare executives are faced with many demands and shrinking budgets. Aware of the difficulties that face local infection control programs, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Board of Directors appointed a task force to draft this evidence-based guideline to assist hospital epidemiologists in justifying and expanding their programs. In Part 1, we describe the basic steps needed to complete a business-case analysis for an individual institution. A case study based on a representative infection control intervention is provided. In Part 2, we review important basic economic concepts and describe approaches that can be used to assess the financial impact of infection prevention, surveillance, and control interventions, as well as the attributable costs of specific healthcare-associated infections. Both parts of the guideline aim to provide the hospital epidemiologist, infection control professional, administrator, and researcher with the tools necessary to complete a thorough business-case analysis and to undertake an outcome study of a nosocomial infection or an infection control intervention.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Raising Standards While Watching the Bottom Line Making a Business Case for Infection Control

Perencevich

Stone

Wright

et al. 2007

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Industry-sponsored research accounted for only 5% of the articles. This is contrary to other clinical fields, such as oncology and the study of infectious diseases, in which industry funding supported a fair amount of CEAs (15% and 17%, respectively) (9,21). This may be due to several factors, including a market driven by innovation, the rapid evolution of the field that serves to narrow the opportunity to perform timely economic analyses (10), the idea that cost-effectiveness could harm innovation (6), and the lack of correlation between the targeted technologies of CEAs and the interests of the industry.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

“…Although the number of published CEAs has increased rapidly, studies have shown that many CEAs do not adhere to recommended practices (17)(18)(19)(20)(21). Specifically, more than 10 years after publication of the panel's recommendations, the quality of the imagingrelated CEAs has not been determined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Twenty Years of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Medical Imaging: Are We Improving?

Otero¹,

Rybicki²,

Greenberg³

et al. 2008

Radiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To determine the growth rate, methodologic clarity, and quality changes in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and to assess whether the U.S. Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine recommendations affected CEA studies in which imaging technologies were evaluated. Materials and Methods:Six databases were systematically searched for CEA reports published between 1985 and 2005. All imaging-related studies were selected and grouped according to year, country, and journal of publication, as well as imaging modality and disease being studied. Two readers with formal training in decision analysis and CEA used a sevenpoint (1, low; 7, high) Likert scale based on reasonableness of assumptions, quality of presentation, and adherence to guidelines to independently evaluate study quality. Quality scores according to year, country, and journal of publication were compared with the unpaired Student t test. Results:The first radiology-related CEA was published in 1985; 111 radiology-related CEAs were published between 1985 and 2005. The average number of studies increased from 1.6 per year between 1985 and 1995 to 9.4 per year between 1996 and 2005. Eighty-six studies were performed to evaluate diagnostic imaging technologies, and 25 were performed to evaluate interventional imaging technologies. Ultrasonography (35.0%), angiography (31.5%), magnetic resonance imaging (22.5%), and computed tomography (19.8%) were evaluated most frequently. Forty-nine studies received government funds; 42 did not disclose the source of funding. The mean quality score was 4.23 Ϯ 1.12 (standard deviation), without significant improvement over time. Scores in studies performed in the United States were significantly higher than scores in studies that were not performed in the United States (4.45 Ϯ 1.02 vs 3.61 Ϯ 1.17, respectively; P Ͻ .01). Scores were also higher in journals with three or more CEA articles published during the study period than in journals with two or fewer CEA articles published during this period (4.54 Ϯ 1.09 vs 3.91 Ϯ 1.06, respectively; P Ͻ .01). Conclusion:CEAs are an important tool with which to analyze the value of diagnostic imaging. However, improvement in the quality of analyses is needed.

show abstract

“…PIMs differ from measures used in cost-effectiveness analyses by not including life expectancy or the utility or valuation of the health outcome. They thus produce outcomes expressed as events rather than generic outcomes such as QALY or DALY gained[25]. We have previously suggested that the valuation of the events prevented should be performed by the policy-maker in relation to the costs of the intervention, once the measures have been produced [26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritising between direct observation of therapy and case-finding interventions for tuberculosis: use of population impact measures

Heller

Gemmell

Edwards

et al. 2006

BMC Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Population impact measures (PIMs) have been developed as tools to help policymakers with locally relevant decisions over health risks and benefits. This involves estimating and prioritising potential benefits of interventions in specific populations. Using tuberculosis (TB) in India as an example, we examined the population impact of two interventions: direct observation of therapy and increasing case-finding.

show abstract

A synthesis of cost-utility analysis literature in infectious disease

Cited by 15 publications

References 39 publications

Raising Standards While Watching the Bottom Line Making a Business Case for Infection Control

Raising Standards While Watching the Bottom Line Making a Business Case for Infection Control

Twenty Years of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Medical Imaging: Are We Improving?

Prioritising between direct observation of therapy and case-finding interventions for tuberculosis: use of population impact measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About