Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science

Crowley, D. Max; Dodge, Kenneth A.; Barnett, W. Steven; Corso, Phaedra S.; Duffy, Sarah Q.; Graham, Phillip; Greenberg, Mark T.; Haskins, Ron; Hill, Laura; Jones, Damon; Karoly, Lynn A.; Kuklinski, Margaret R.; Plotnick, Robert D.

doi:10.1007/s11121-017-0858-1

Cited by 69 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Investigators may select other values based on practical considerations. For example, cost-benefit analyses using information about the economic costs of intervention and economic savings from preventing a case may provide important benchmarks for determining NNT levels where costs no longer outweigh benefits (Crowley et al, 2018). The picture can change when population risk varies with baseline target levels.…”

Section: Compensatory Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using baseline target moderation to guide decisions on adapting prevention programs

Howe

2019

Dev Psychopathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractTom Dishion, a pioneer in prevention science, was one of the first to recognize the importance of adapting interventions to the needs of individual families. Building towards this goal, we suggest that prevention trials be used to assess baseline target moderated mediation (BTMM), where preventive intervention effects are mediated through change in specific targets, and the resulting effect varies across baseline levels of the target. Four forms of BTMM found in recent trials are discussed including compensatory, rich-get-richer, crossover, and differential iatrogenic effects. A strategy for evaluating meaningful preventive effects is presented based on preventive thresholds for diagnostic conditions, midpoint targets and proximal risk or protective mechanisms. Methods are described for using the results from BTMM analyses of these thresholds to estimate indices of intervention risk reduction or increase as they vary over baseline target levels, and potential cut points are presented for identifying subgroups that would benefit from program adaptation because of weak or potentially iatrogenic program effects. Simulated data are used to illustrate curves for the four forms of BTMM effects and how implications for adaptation change when untreated control group outcomes also vary over baseline target levels.

show abstract

Section: Compensatory Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using baseline target moderation to guide decisions on adapting prevention programs

Howe

2019

Dev Psychopathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These Standards for Economic Evaluation (Crowley et al 2018) present a consensus from a variety of scientific communities, not just economic evaluators, about how to conduct evaluations of prevention programs that describe and predict relationships between the value of resources invested in prevention and the value of resources saved and generated by prevention. These have been a long time coming, are sorely needed, and will be much appreciated in the long run.…”

Section: What the Standards Got So Rightmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

AbstractThe current paper is a commentary on the Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science (Crowley et al 2018). Although the standards got a lot right, some important issues were not addressed or could be explored further.

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…and 2017. At least three major publications present standards for economic evaluation (Crowley et al 2018;Neumann et al 2017;Steuerle and Jackson 2016), while newer editions of classic texts for economic studies are more comprehensive and read much like standards themselves (e.g., Drummond et al 2015;Levin et al 2017). Clearly, the time is ripe for cost-inclusive standards to be introduced into prevention.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Commentary on “Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science”

Yates

2018

Prev Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current paper is a commentary on the Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science (Crowley et al. 2018). Although the standards got a lot right, some important issues were not addressed or could be explored further. Measuring rather than modeling is encouraged whenever possible. That also is in keeping with the approach taken by many prevention researchers. Pre-program planning for collection of data on resources used by individual participants (i.e., costs) is recommended, along with devotion of evaluation resources to cost assessment throughout program implementation. A Bcost study^should never be an afterthought tacked on as a later aim in a research proposal. Needing inclusion or enhancement in the standards, however, are several key concepts, starting with the often-confused distinction between costs and outcomes. The importance of collecting data on individual-level variability in resource use, i.e., costs, needs to be distinguished from simplistic disaggregation-by-division of program cost totals down to individuals. In some passages of the standards, the uniqueness of individual participants seems dismissed as error variance rather than considered a primary phenomenon for study and understanding. Standards for formatting reports of economic evaluations could themselves be more evidence-based. Missing too is an explicit call for inclusion of the standards' recommendations in peer review of prevention research proposals, and in funding of prevention research. Finally, we can be confident that the better outcomes the standards promise will come at additional costs to prevention researchers. This commentary concludes by considering whether the standards themselves are cost-beneficial.

show abstract

“…A primary driver of healthcare expenditures in the USA is the growing burden of chronic health conditions 4. Developing, identifying and scaling interventions that efficiently prevent and manage chronic conditions is an important factor for controlling healthcare costs, and decision makers—faced with limited public resources—are increasingly requesting information on the economic costs and benefits of health interventions to make evidence-based programming and resource allocation decisions 5 6. Sound economic evaluations, such as cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis of health interventions, can provide valuable information that supports allocation decisions 7 8…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding cost data collection tools to improve economic evaluations of health interventions

Chapel

Wang

2019

Stroke Vasc Neurol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Micro-costing data collection tools often used in literature include standardized comprehensive templates, targeted questionnaires, activity logs, on-site administrative databases, and direct observation. These tools are not mutually exclusive and are often used in combination. Each tool has unique merits and limitations, and some may be more applicable than others under different circumstances. Proper application of micro-costing tools can produce quality cost estimates and enhance the usefulness of economic evaluations to inform resource allocation decisions. A common method to derive both fixed and variable costs of an intervention involves collecting data from the bottom up for each resource consumed (micro-costing). We scanned economic evaluation literature published in 2008-2018 and identified micro-costing data collection tools used. We categorized the identified tools and discuss their practical applications in an example study of health interventions, including their potential strengths and weaknesses. Sound economic evaluations of health interventions provide valuable information for justifying resource allocation decisions, planning for implementation, and enhancing the sustainability of the interventions. However, the quality of intervention cost estimates is seldom addressed in the literature. Reliable cost data forms the foundation of economic evaluations, and without reliable estimates, evaluation results, such as cost-effectiveness measures, could be misleading. In this project, we identified data collection tools often used to obtain reliable data for estimating costs of interventions that prevent and manage chronic conditions and considered practical applications to promote their use.

show abstract

Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science

Cited by 69 publications

References 77 publications

Using baseline target moderation to guide decisions on adapting prevention programs

Using baseline target moderation to guide decisions on adapting prevention programs

Commentary on “Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science”

Understanding cost data collection tools to improve economic evaluations of health interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About