The status of health economic evaluation within decision making in Austria

Zechmeister‐Koss, Ingrid; Stanak, Michal; Wolf, Sarah

doi:10.1007/s10354-019-0689-8

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our protocol for evaluating the eE Program describes a ‘slow science’ research design [ 21 ], designed to overcome this and other barriers to the use of economic evaluation listed in previous reports [ 17 , 34 – 41 ]. As far as the authors are aware, no previous designs have sought to document and tease apart the process of interaction and the relational aspects of engagement of an embedded economist with health service managers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embedding an economist in regional and rural health services to add value and reduce waste by improving local-level decision-making: protocol for the ‘embedded Economist’ program and evaluation

Searles

Piper²,

Jorm

et al. 2021

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Systematic approaches to the inclusion of economic evaluation in national healthcare decision-making are usual. It is less common for economic evaluation to be routinely undertaken at the ‘local-level’ (e.g. in a health service or hospital) despite the largest proportion of health care expenditure being determined at this service level and recognition by local health service decision makers of the need for capacity building in economic evaluation skills. This paper describes a novel program – the embedded Economist (eE) Program. The eE Program aims to increase local health service staff awareness of, and develop their capacity to access and apply, economic evaluation principles in decision making. The eE program evaluation is also described. The aim of the evaluation is to capture the contextual, procedural and relational aspects that assist and detract from the eE program aims; as well as the outcomes and impact from the specific eE projects. Methods The eE Program consists of a embedding a health economist in six health services and the provision of supported education in applied economic evaluation, provided via a community of practice and a university course. The embedded approach is grounded in co-production, embedded researchers and ‘slow science’. The sites, participants, and program design are described. The program evaluation includes qualitative data collection via surveys, semi-structured interviews, observations and field diaries. In order to share interim findings, data are collected and analysed prior, during and after implementation of the eE program, at each of the six health service sites. The surveys will be analysed by calculating frequencies and descriptive statistics. A thematic analysis will be conducted on interview, observation and filed diary data. The Framework to Assess the Impact from Translational health research (FAIT) is utilised to assess the overall impact of the eE Program. Discussion This program and evaluation will contribute to knowledge about how best to build capacity and skills in economic evaluation amongst decision-makers working in local-level health services. It will examine the extent to which participants are able to improve their ability to utilise evidence to inform decisions, avoid waste and improve the value of care delivery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embedding an economist in regional and rural health services to add value and reduce waste by improving local-level decision-making: protocol for the ‘embedded Economist’ program and evaluation

Searles

Piper²,

Jorm

et al. 2021

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Few studies around the world have assessed challenges in using and conducting economic evaluations [ 16 , 24 , 25 , 32 ]. Luz et al [ 16 ] investigated the perceived challenges of conducting, using and reporting economic evaluations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This also echoes findings in other studies [ 7 , 16 , 25 ]. Challenges related to decision-makers’ support, confidence and understanding of the use of economic evaluations have also been addressed in other studies [ 24 , 25 , 32 ]. A study conducted by Roseboom et al [ 25 ] found that decision-makers have some difficulties in interpreting economic evaluation outcomes, including QALYs, and in dealing with issues around the transferability of data across countries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We are not aware of any published instruments on measuring barriers and facilitators to conducting economic evaluations. Therefore, we consulted studies assessing barriers and facilitators to the use of economic evaluations in decision-making [11,16,[24][25][26], conducting randomized clinical trials in developing countries [27], and health research in general [28,29] to compile two lists, one for barriers and one for facilitators. Three additional barriers and facilitators perceived by the authors, who all hold a PhD in health economics, were also listed.…”

Section: Instrument Development and Administrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Barriers and facilitators to conducting economic evaluation studies of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries: a survey of researchers

Almazrou

AlAujan

Al-Aqeel

2021

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The number of published economic evaluations of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries is notably scarce. Limited local evidence could have a major impact on the implementation of economic evaluation recommendations in the decision-making process in GCC countries. Little is known about the factors affecting researchers who seek to conduct economic evaluations. Therefore, we aimed to assess researcher barriers and facilitators in conducting such studies of GCC countries. Methods A cross-sectional survey of health economic researchers working in GCC countries was conducted online between January and February 2020. The survey instrument collected researchers’ perceived barriers and facilitators and demographic information. For barriers, respondents rated their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. For facilitators, respondents rated the importance of each facilitator on a six-point scale ranging from “extremely important” to “not very important”. Then, participants were asked to select the three most important barriers and facilitators from the lists. The data collected were examined using descriptive analysis. Results Fifty-one researchers completed the survey (37% response rate). The majority of participants (more than 80%) agreed that lack of quality of effectiveness data and restricted access to unit cost data are the main barriers to conducting economic research. Availability of relevant local data was reported as an important facilitator, followed by collaboration between health economic researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders. Conclusions The results of this study provide an exploratory view of the issues faced by health economics researchers in GCC countries. Recommendations to GCC countries based on international experiences, such as to use real-world data in economic evaluation research, were provided.

show abstract

“…The economic evaluation area in healthcare joins the economy rationalization to decision making in this sector (Zechmeister-Koss et al, 2019). In Brazil and around the world, health systems and their managers are facing challenges to offer quality health care to the population considering the available resources (Brazil, 2009;Zechmeister-Koss et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health evaluation of three types of baths in patients with severe heart diseases

Santos

Lôbo

Reis

et al. 2022

RSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To analyze the cost of three bed bath technologies in critically ill cardiac patients. Study design: Non-participant, prospective, observational, and cost assessment study. Data were collected between February and August 2017, at the cardiac intensive care (ICU) of a university hospital. The convenience sample corresponded to 18 patients in the immediate postoperative period of cardiac surgery. Data were collected within 72 h after cardiac surgery, with 24-hour washout between baths. Project was approved under the number: 1.823.316. Results: The mean time for bed bath was 39.00±15.00 min (traditional bath), 33.00±12.24 min (distilled water bath) and 25.28±7.35 min (disposable bath). The average final costs identified were R$ 45.47 (US$ 8.80), R$ 40.78 (US$ 7.89) and R$ 48.36 (US$ 9.36). Conclusion: The bath with the lowest total average cost was the distilled water bath. The cost category that most burdens the bed baths is human capital, which represents more than 2/3 of the procedures total cost. There are few studies exploring the costs associated to nursing procedures, and this analysis can contribute to discussions about materials purchase and support managers to make better decisions about nursing care.

show abstract

The status of health economic evaluation within decision making in Austria

Cited by 13 publications

References 28 publications

Embedding an economist in regional and rural health services to add value and reduce waste by improving local-level decision-making: protocol for the ‘embedded Economist’ program and evaluation

Embedding an economist in regional and rural health services to add value and reduce waste by improving local-level decision-making: protocol for the ‘embedded Economist’ program and evaluation

Barriers and facilitators to conducting economic evaluation studies of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries: a survey of researchers

Health evaluation of three types of baths in patients with severe heart diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About