Systematic literature review to evaluate and characterize the health economics and outcomes research studies in India

Abstract

Aim:This systematic literature review was conducted to identify, evaluate, and characterize the variety, quality, and intent of the health economics and outcomes research studies being conducted in India.Materials and Methods:Studies published in English language between 1999 and 2012 were retrieved from Embase and PubMed databases using relevant search strategies. Two researchers independently reviewed the studies as per Cochrane methodology; information on the type of research and the outcomes were extracted. Quality of reporting was assessed for model-based health economic studies using a published 100-point Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.Results:Of 546 studies screened, 132 were included in the review. The broad study categories were cost-effectiveness analyses [(CEA) 54 studies], cost analyses (19 studies), and burden of illness [(BOI) 18 studies]. The outcomes evaluated were direct and indirect costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Direct medical costs assessed cost of medicines, monitoring costs, consultation and hospital charges, along with direct non-medical costs (travel and food for patients and care givers). Loss of productivity and loss of income of patients and care givers were identified as the components of indirect cost. Overall, 33 studies assessed the quality of life (QoL), and the WHO Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) was the most commonly used instrument. Quality assessment for modeling studies showed that most studies were of high quality [mean (range) QHES score to be 75.5 (34-93)].Conclusions:This review identified various patterns of pharmacoeconomic studies and good-quality CEA studies. However, there is a need for better assessment of utilization of healthcare resources in India.

Cost-effectiveness research in cancer therapy: a systematic review of literature trends, methods and the influence of funding

“…Since no standardisation exists for the interpretation of QHES scores, the score 75–100 was set as good, the score 51–74 as fair, the score 25–49 as poor and the score 0–24 as extremely poor. 13–15 …”

A Systematic Review of the State of Economic Evaluation for Health Care in India

“…Moreover, the review included both full economic evaluations (cost per outcome description with comparison of alternatives) as well as simple cost analyses. Another systematic review from India by Mishra et al found 132 articles published between 1999 and 2012 [10]. However, this was not focussed on full economic evaluations alone, and included several other studies such as cost-only analysis and studies which measured changes in outcome (estimation of quality of life) alone.…”

Cost analysis of nutrition messaging intervention through community-led videos in Odisha

“…Devoting one percent of the country's GDP to a well-designed health program nationwide could save as many as 480 million healthy years of life [2]. Mishra and Nair conducted a systematic literature review of 132 cost effectiveness, cost analyses, and burden of illness research studies of health programs in India [16]. The survey found that there is a need for better assessment of healthcare resources in India.…”