Health technology assessment in universal health coverage

Chalkidou, Kalipso; Marten, Robert; Cutler, Derek; Culyer, Tony; Smith, Richard; Teerawattananon, Yot; Cluzeau, Françoise; Li, Ryan; Sullivan, Richard; Huang, Yanzhong; Fan, Victoria Y.; Glassman, Amanda; Yu, Dandan; Gyansa-Lutterodt, Martha; McPherson, Sam; Gadelha, Carlos Augusto Grabois; Sundararaman, T; Squires, Neil; Daulaire, N; Sadanandan, Rajeev; Konuma, Shiro; Lemgruber, Alexandre

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62559-3

Cited by 41 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of research evidence to inform health policy decision-making has been identified as a means to improve the effectiveness of health policy decisions [1-3], to strengthen health systems [4], and to achieve universal health coverage [5]. Yet, evidence-informed policymaking occurs relatively infrequently for reasons related to the evidence itself [6], the policy issue being discussed [7], and because evidence ‘competes’ with many other inputs in a complex policy-making environment, including institutions, interests, ideas and external events [1,3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exchanging and using research evidence in health policy networks: a statistical network analysis

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEvidence-informed health policymaking is a goal of equitable and effective health systems but occurs infrequently in reality. Past research points to the facilitating role of interpersonal relationships between policy-makers and researchers, imploring the adoption of a social network lens. This study aims to identify network-level factors associated with the exchange and use of research evidence in policymaking.MethodsData on social networks and research use were collected from seventy policy actors across three health policy cases in Burkina Faso (child health, malaria, and HIV). Networks were graphed for actors’ interactions, their provision of, and request for research evidence. Exponential random graph models estimated the probability of evidence provision and request between actors, controlling for network- and individual-level covariates. Logistic regression models estimated actors’ use of research evidence to inform policy.ResultsNetwork structure explained more than half of the evidence exchanges (ties) observed in these networks. Across all cases, a pair of actors was more likely to form a provision tie if they already had a request tie between them and visa versa (θ = 6.16, p < 0.05; θ = 2.87, p < 0.05; θ = 2.31, p < 0.05). The child health network displayed clustering tendencies, meaning that actors were more likely to form ties if they shared an acquaintance (θ = 2.36, p < 0.05). Actors’ use of research evidence was positively associated with their centrality (i.e., connectedness).ConclusionsThe exchange and use of research evidence in policymaking can be partly explained by the structure of actors’ networks of relationships. Efforts to support knowledge translation and evidence-informed policymaking should consider network factors.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0126-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exchanging and using research evidence in health policy networks: a statistical network analysis

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is sufficient evidence that, after the cases of HPV, [121][122][123] influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations, [124][125] there is the need for a full health technology assessment (HTA) 126 also for HBV vaccination. As suggested by NICE international, 127 HTA should always be part of the priority-setting process, and this is particularly true in the field of vaccinations, in order to offer efficient and equitable allocation of health care in the field of prevention.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic evaluation of HBV vaccination: A systematic review of recent publications (2000–2013)

Torre

Mannocci

Saulle

et al. 2016

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To conduct a systematic review of the economic evaluations (EE) of HBV vaccination, taking also into account the studies published in the new millennium. Methods: An extensive scientific literature review was conducted using two electronic medical journal databases: Scopus and PubMed engines for published studies on EE of HBV vaccination. Results: 22 articles were reviewed, 9, 5 and 8 cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and cost-utility analysis, respectively. Studies were mainly concerning EE of universal vaccination (UV), mostly with regards to low or low-medium income countries. For high income countries, EE were focused on the possible implementation of HBV vaccination in particular settings, such as diabetic, renal and other chronic conditions care, as well as infectious diseasesUV has usually a very good cost-effectiveness ratio (80%), ranging from cost-saving (China) or few Euro per LY/QALY gained (in Thailand, and Vietnam) to 630.00$/ QALY in USA (Asian and Pacific Islands) Moreover, EE of HBV vaccination are favorable in the infectious diseases field as well as for chronic conditions. In relation to diabetes the studies gave controversial results. Conclusion: This systematic review highlighted the importance of introducing HBV vaccination not only for infant UV program but also for other settings in which patients are people affected by communicable and non-communicable diseases.

show abstract

“…Frameworks exist for how these processes can form the core of legitimate institutions (Daniels and Sabin 2008). The processes can build on the methods of health technology assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis, which can help translate evidence and explicit values into policy decisions (Baltussen and Niessen 2006;Glassman and Chalkidou 2012;Chalkidou et al 2013). At the same time, it is important that the mix of services covered and interventions included is dynamic and sensitive to changing population needs and new innovations.…”

Section: Strengthening Priority-settingmentioning

confidence: 99%