Coauthorship and Institutional Collaborations on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Network Analysis

Abstract

BackgroundCost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) has been promoted as an important research methodology for determining the efficiency of healthcare technology and guiding medical decision-making. Our aim was to characterize the collaborative patterns of CEA conducted over the past two decades in Spain.Methods and FindingsA systematic analysis was carried out with the information obtained through an updated comprehensive literature review and from reports of health technology assessment agencies. We identified CEAs with outcomes expressed as a time-based summary measure of population health (e.g. quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years), conducted in Spain and published between 1989 and 2011. Networks of coauthorship and institutional collaboration were produced using PAJEK software. One-hundred and thirty-one papers were analyzed, in which 526 authors and 230 institutions participated. The overall signatures per paper index was 5.4. Six major groups (one with 14 members, three with 7 members and two with 6 members) were identified. The most prolific authors were generally affiliated with the private-for-profit sector (e.g. consulting firms and the pharmaceutical industry). The private-for-profit sector mantains profuse collaborative networks including public hospitals and academia. Collaboration within the public sector (e.g. healthcare administration and primary care) was weak and fragmented.ConclusionsThis empirical analysis reflects critical practices among collaborative networks that contributed substantially to the production of CEA, raises challenges for redesigning future policies and provides a framework for similar analyses in other regions.

Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: a social network analysis

“…It also offers information to assess the citation patterns among papers within a specialty [14], to identify gaps in the evidence from scientific research [15], and to understand the structure and nature of relationships and interactions within a scientific community that collaborate to better achieve common or compatible goals [13,16]. …”

Bibliometric profile of the global scientific research on multiple sclerosis (2003–2012)

“…Asia(11) and sub-Saharan Africa (four), in addition to a set of local organisations spread all over the world 21. In addition, some social media initiatives, such as MS Connection (https://www.msconnection.…”

When Are Statins Cost-Effective in Cardiovascular Prevention? A Systematic Review of Sponsorship Bias and Conclusions in Economic Evaluations of Statins

“…All of these strategies are probably sound and indispensable in the current context, but they all also have important weaknesses. Policies on conflict of interest so far have not been sufficient to reduce sponsors’ control of the results of cost-effectiveness studies, and the extensive collaborative networks between manufacturers, contracted consulting firms, academia and healthcare centres [56] create situations that allow industry sponsorship to be concealed. The use of methodological guidelines does not prevent slipping "reasonable favourable assumptions" into economic models (as Evans stated “researchers know what sponsors want to hear and what will affect the probability of subsequent support” [13]).…”