Economic evaluation of interventions in health care

McFarland, Agi

doi:10.7748/ns.29.10.49.e9315

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gaps in knowledge can be narrowed by fostering collaboration with health economists and health services researchers who have skills and experience in economic evaluation. Several authors (Grosse, Teutsch, & Haddix, 2007; Guest, 2013; McFarland, 2014) have provided useful and accessible introductions to economic evaluation. For example, a recent publication (Bensink et al, 2013) can help nurse researchers apply the methodology of economic evaluation—specifically, cost-effectiveness analysis, alongside a randomized controlled trial.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantity and Quality of Economic Evaluations in U.S. Nursing Research, 1997–2015

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The United States has a complex healthcare system that is undergoing substantial reformations. There is a need for high-quality, economic evaluations of nursing practice. An updated review of completed economic evaluations relevant to the field of nursing within the U.S. healthcare system is timely and needed. Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate and describe the quantity and quality of economic evaluations in nursing-relevant research performed in the U.S. between 1997 and 2015. Methods Four databases were searched. Titles, abstracts, and full-text content were reviewed to identify studies that analyzed both costs and outcomes, relevant to nursing, performed in the U.S., and used the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) to measure effectiveness. For included studies, data were extracted from full-text articles using criteria from U.S. Public Health Service’s Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Results Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Most (n = 25, 89%) were published in the last decade of the analysis, from 2006 to 2015. Assessment of quality, based on selected items from the panel guidelines, found that the evaluations did not consistently use the recommended societal perspective, use multiple resource utilization categories, use constant dollars, discount future costs and outcomes, use a lifetime horizon, or include an indication of uncertainty in results. The only resource utilization category consistently included across studies was healthcare resources. Discussion Only 28 nursing-related studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified as meeting robust health economic evaluation methodological criteria, and most did not include all important guideline items. Despite increases in absolute numbers of published studies over the past decade, economic evaluation has been underutilized in U.S. nursing-relevant research in the past two decades.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantity and Quality of Economic Evaluations in U.S. Nursing Research, 1997–2015

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The outcomes could be measured using different ratios (for example, cost per life year gained or pain free days) [1]. This data should be obtained, when possible, from clinical trials [8]. CEAs provide a definite answer on a specific comparison, i.e.…”

Section: Types Of Economic Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has established a costeffectiveness threshold range between £ 20.000 and £ 30.000 per life year gained. [11] However, Ottolini et al 8 this kind of analysis could be performed only if the compared interventions use a common unit of effectiveness, such as cost per life year gained [8]. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis might examine this intervention in terms of quantity and not of quality [8].…”

Section: Types Of Economic Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contrary to CEA, which analyses a benefit of an intervention only in terms of quantity, CUA focuses also on quality and include also the preferences of the patient [8]. The effectiveness of an intervention is measured through its utility value [8] that is ranged between 0 (worst health) and 1 (best health). Then, by multiplying the utility value with the length of time in that state, QALYs are obtained [8].…”

Section: Types Of Economic Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The effectiveness of an intervention is measured through its utility value [8] that is ranged between 0 (worst health) and 1 (best health). Then, by multiplying the utility value with the length of time in that state, QALYs are obtained [8]. Several direct methods exist to calculate the utility value.…”

Section: Types Of Economic Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The complex interface between economy and healthcare: An introductory overview for clinicians

Ottolini

Buggio

Somigliana

et al. 2016

European Journal of Internal Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a period of generalized economic crisis, it seems particularly appropriate to try to manage a continuing growing sector such as healthcare in the best possible way. The crucial aim of optimization of available healthcare resources is obtaining the maximum possible benefit with the minimum expenditure. This has important social implications, whether individual citizens or tax-funded national health services eventually have to pay the bill. The keyword here is efficiency, which means either, maximizing the benefit from a fixed sum of money, or minimizing the resources required for a defined benefit. In order to achieve these objectives, economic evaluation is a helpful tool. Five different types of economic evaluation exist in the health-care field: cost-minimization, cost-benefit, cost-consequences, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. The objective of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the principal methods used for economic evaluation in healthcare. Economic evaluation represents a starting point for the allocation of resources, the decision of the valuable investments and the division of budgets across different health programs. Moreover, economic evaluation allows the comparison of different procedures in terms of quality of life and life expectancy, bearing in mind that cost-effectiveness is only one of multiple facets in the decision making-process. Economic evaluation is important to critically evaluate clinical interventions and ensure that we are implementing the most cost-effective management protocols. Clinicians are called to fulfill the complex task of optimizing the use of resources, and, at the same time, improving the quality of healthcare assistance.

show abstract

The economic benefits of surgical site infection prevention in adults: a systematic review

McFarland

Reilly

Manoukian

et al. 2020

Journal of Hospital Infection

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Surgical site infections (SSI) present a significant burden to healthcare and patients in terms of excess length of stay, distress, disability and death. SSI risk and the associated economic burden may be reduced through adherence to prevention guidelines although the irreducible minimum is unclear.Aim: To evaluate the methods used to estimate the cost effectiveness of prevention strategies for all SSI.Methods: Pubmed, Medline, CINAHL and NHS Economic Evaluation Database were searched from inception to January 2020 to identify English language economic evaluation studies, embedded economic evaluations and studies with some analysis in relation to cost and benefit in adult patients receiving surgical care in any setting. Risk of bias was assessed using the Drummond [1] and Philips [2] checklists.Findings: 32 studies involving 24 043 participants were included. Most studies evaluated SSI prevention in orthopaedic surgeries. Antibiotic prophylaxis, screening, treating or decolonisation of MRSA and surgical wound closure were the main methods evaluated. Methods ranged from cost analyses to cost effectiveness and cost utility analyses. Synthesis of results was not possible due to heterogeneity. All studies reported some economic benefit associated with preventing SSI however measures of benefit were not reported consistently and the quality of studies was low to moderate. Limited evidence in relation to SSI impact on quality of life was identified.Conclusion: Current evidence in relation to the economic benefits of SSI prevention is limited. Further robust studies which utilise sound economic and epidemiological methods are required to inform future investment decisions in SSI prevention.

show abstract

Economic evaluation of interventions in health care

Cited by 12 publications

References 11 publications

Quantity and Quality of Economic Evaluations in U.S. Nursing Research, 1997–2015

Quantity and Quality of Economic Evaluations in U.S. Nursing Research, 1997–2015

The complex interface between economy and healthcare: An introductory overview for clinicians

The economic benefits of surgical site infection prevention in adults: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About