Capacity for health economics research and practice in Jordan, Lebanon, the occupied Palestinian territories and Turkey: needs assessment and options for development

Background: Capacity for health economics analysis and research is indispensable for evidence-informed allocations of scarce health resources, however little is known about the experience and capacity strengthening preferences of academics and practitioners in the Eastern Mediterranean region. This study aimed to assess the needs for strengthening health economics capacity in Jordan, Lebanon, the occupied Palestinian territories and Turkey as part of the Research for Health in Conflict in Middle East and North Africa (R4HC-MENA) project. Methods: Bibliometric analysis of health economics outputs combined with an online survey of academic researchers and non-academic practitioners. The bibliometric analysis was based on a literature search conducted across seven databases. Included records were original studies and reviews with an explicit economic outcome related to health, disease or disability; had at least one author in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine or Turkey; and were published between January 2014 and December 2018. Two types of analyses were conducted using VOSviewer software: keyword co-occurrence; and co-publication networks across countries and organizations. The online survey asked academic researchers, analysts and decision-makers – identified through the bibliometric analysis and regional professional networks – about previous exposure to and preference for capacity development in health economics. Results: Of 15,185 records returned by the literature search, 566 were included in the bibliometric analysis. Organizations in Turkey contributed more than 80% of records and had the broadest and most diverse network of collaborators, nationally and internationally. Only 1% (n=7) studies were collaborations between researchers in two or more different jurisdictions. Cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and health system economics were the main health economics topics across the included studies. Economic evaluation, measuring the economic burden of disease and health equity were reported by survey respondents (n=80) as the most important areas to develop in. Short courses, learn-by-doing and mentoring from an experienced professional were, in aggregate, the most preferred capacity development modalities. Conclusions: Existing pockets of health economic expertise in the region can constitute the base of future capacity development efforts. Building confidence toward applying specific methods and trust toward stimulating cross-jurisdiction collaborations appear essential components for sustainably developing health economics capacity

What Counts in Economic Evaluations in Health? Benefit-cost Analysis Compared to Other Forms of Economic Evaluations

Economic evaluations are increasingly popular, both in the field of global health as well as in purely domestic settings. However, the proliferation and use of economic evaluations by members of multiple publics, many of whom are non-economists, creates misunderstandings as well as strategic opportunities. In this extended essay, Lauer and colleagues develop a critical analysis of economic evaluations that is intended to clarify concepts and terms, and thereby to enable a diverse community of users, performers, and commissioners of economic analyses in health to better understand and use such studies. The authors pay particular attention to cost-effectiveness analysis, long the mainstay of economic evaluations in health, and to benefit-cost analysis. The article starts by noting that economic evaluations in health (EEHs) take a number of typical forms, although all involve a comparison of inputs and outcomes, either of which may or may not be market-traded goods. They call a particular choice of inputs and outcomes a ‘table of accounts’. They argue that the notion of a table of accounts provides a useful way to understand the methodological diversity of EEHs, one which subsumes more established but also more restrictive terminology (e.g. the notion of ‘study perspective’). Lauer and colleagues present tables of account for a number of commonly used EEHs. They then discuss at length benefit-cost analysis, a distinctive form of EEH that has recently attracted substantial attention in the form of so-called ‘investment cases’ in healt

Strengthening health technology assessment systems in the global south: a comparative analysis of the HTA journeys of China, India and South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Resource allocation in health is universally challenging, but especially so in resource-constrained contexts in the Global South. Pursuing a strategy of evidence-based decision-making and using tools such as Health Technology Assessment (HTA), can help address issues relating to both affordability and equity when allocating resources. Three BRICS and Global South countries, China, India and South Africa have committed to strengthening HTA capacity and developing their domestic HTA systems, with the goal of getting evidence translated into policy. Through assessing and comparing the HTA journey of each country it may be possible to identify common problems and shareable insights. OBJECTIVES: This collaborative paper aimed to share knowledge on strengthening HTA systems to enable enhanced evidence-based decision-making in the Global South by: Identifying common barriers and enablers in three BRICS countries in the Global South; and Exploring how South-South collaboration can strengthen HTA capacity and utilisation for better healthcare decision-making. METHODS: A descriptive and explorative comparative analysis was conducted comprising a Within-Case analysis to produce a narrative of the HTA journey in each country and an Across-Case analysis to explore both knowledge that could be shared and any potential knowledge gaps. RESULTS: Analyses revealed that China, India and South Africa share many barriers to strengthening and developing HTA systems such as: (1) Minimal HTA expertise; (2) Weak health data infrastructure; (3) Rising healthcare costs; (4) Fragmented healthcare systems; and (5) Significant growth in non-communicable diseases. Stakeholder engagement and institutionalisation of HTA were identified as two conducive factors for strengthening HTA systems. CONCLUSION: China, India and South Africa have all committed to establishing robust HTA systems to inform evidence-based priority setting and have experienced similar challenges. Engagement among countries of the Global South can provide a supportive platform to share knowledge that is more applicable and pragmatic

Identification of publicly available data sources to inform the conduct of Health Technology Assessment in India

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) provides a globally-accepted and structured approach to synthesising evidence for cost and clinical effectiveness alongside ethical and equity considerations to inform evidence-based priorities. India is one of the most recent countries to formally commit to institutionalising HTA as an integral component of the heath resource allocation decision-making process. The effective conduct of HTA depends on the availability of reliable data. Methods: We draw from our experience of collecting, synthesizing, and analysing health-related datasets in India and internationally, to highlight the complex requirements for undertaking HTA, and explore the availability of such data in India. We first outlined each of the core data components required for the conduct of HTA, and their availability in India, drawing attention to where data can be accessed, and different ways in which researchers can overcome the challenges of missing or low quality data. Results: We grouped data into the following categories: clinical efficacy; cost; epidemiology; quality of life; service use/consumption; and equity. We identified numerous large local data sources containing epidemiological information. There was a marked absence of other locally-collected data necessary for informing HTA, particularly data relating to cost, service use, and quality of life. Conclusions: The introduction of HTA into the health policy space in India provides an opportunity to comprehensively assess the availability and quality of health data capture across the country. While epidemiological information is routinely collected across India, other data inputs necessary for HTA are not readily available. This poses a significant bottleneck to the efficient generation and deployment of HTA into the health decision space. Overcoming these data gaps by strengthening the routine collection of comprehensive and verifiable health data will have important implications not only for embedding economic analyses into the priority setting process, but for strengthening the health system as a whole

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiation Therapy Compared With Surgery and Radiofrequency Ablation in Two Patient Cohorts: Metastatic Liver Cancer and Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Aims: To compare the cost-effectiveness of stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy (SABR) with radiofrequency ablation and surgery in adult patients with metastatic liver cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). / Materials and methods: Two patient cohorts were assessed: liver oligometastases and HCC. For each patient cohort, a decision analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions over a 5-year horizon. A Markov process was embedded in the decision model to simulate the possible prognosis of cancer. Data on transition probabilities, survival, side-effects, quality of life and costs were obtained from published sources and the SABR Commissioning through Evaluation (CtE) scheme. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with respect to quality-adjusted life-years. The robustness of the results was examined in a sensitivity analysis. Analyses were conducted from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. / Results: In the base case analysis, which assumed that all three interventions were associated with the same cancer progression rates and mortality rates, SABR was the most cost-effective intervention for both patient cohorts. This conclusion was sensitive to the cancer progression rate, mortality rate and cost of interventions. Assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probability that SABR is cost-effective was 57% and 50% in liver oligometastases and HCC, respectively. / Conclusions: Our results indicate a potential for SABR to be cost-effective for patients with liver oligometastases and HCC. This finding supports further investigation in clinical trials directly comparing SABR with surgery and radiofrequency ablation

When does NICE recommend the use of health technologies within a programme of evidence development?

This article is made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Background: There is growing interest internationally in linking reimbursement decisions with recommendations for further research. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) can issue guidance to approve the routine use of a health intervention, reject routine use or recommend use within a research programme. These latter recommendations have restricted use to ‘only in research’ (OIR) or have recommended further research alongside routine use (‘approval with research’ or AWR). However, it is not currently clear when such recommendations are likely to be made. Objectives: This study aims to identify NICE technology appraisals where OIR or AWR recommendations were made and to examine the key considerations that led to those decisions. Methods: Draft and final guidance including OIR/AWR recommendations were identified. The documents were reviewed to establish the characteristics of the technology appraisal, the cost effectiveness of the technologies, the key considerations that led to the recommendations and the types of research required. Results: In total, 29 final and 31 draft guidance documents included OIR/AWR recommendations up to January 2010. Overall, 86 % of final guidance included OIR recommendations. Of these, the majority were for technologies considered to be cost ineffective (83 %) and the majority of final guidance (66 %) specified the need for further evidence on relative effectiveness. The use of OIR/AWR recommendations is decreasing over time and they have rarely been used in appraisals conducted through the single technology appraisal process. Conclusion: NICE has used its ability to recommend technologies within research programmes, although predominantly within the multiple technology appraisal process. OIR recommendations have been most frequently issued for technologies considered cost ineffective and the most frequently cited consideration is uncertainty related to relative effectiveness. Key considerations cited for most AWR recommendations and some OIR recommendations included a need for further evidence on long-term outcomes and adverse effects of treatment.Medical Research Counci

Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A

Purpose The benefits of health and social care are not confined to patient health alone and therefore broader measures of wellbeing may be useful for economic evaluation.\ud This paper reports the development of a simple measure of capability wellbeing for adults (ICECAP-A).\ud Methods In-depth, informant-led, interviews to identify the attributes of capability wellbeing were conducted with 36 adults in the UK. Eighteen semi-structured, repeat interviews were carried out to develop a capability-based descriptive system for the measure. Informants were purposively selected to ensure variation in socio-economic status, age, sex, ethnicity and health. Data analysis was carried out inductively and iteratively alongside interviews, and findings were used to shape the questions in later interviews.\ud Results Five over-arching attributes of capability wellbeing were identified for the measure: ‘‘stability’’,‘‘attachment’’, ‘‘achievement’’, ‘‘autonomy’’ and ‘‘enjoyment’’. One item, with four response categories, was developed for each attribute for the ICECAP-A descriptive system.\ud Conclusions The ICECAP-A capability measure represents a departure from traditional health economics outcome measures, by treating health status as an influence over broader attributes of capability wellbeing. Further work is required to value and validate the attributes and test the sensitivity of the ICECAP-A to healthcare interventions

Best practice considerations on the assessment of robotic assisted surgical systems:results from an international consensus expert panel

Background Health technology assessments (HTAs) of robotic assisted surgery (RAS) face several challenges in assessing the value of robotic surgical platforms. As a result of using different assessment methods, previous HTAs have reached different conclusions when evaluating RAS. While the number of available systems and surgical procedures is rapidly growing, existing frameworks for assessing MedTech provide a starting point, but specific considerations are needed for HTAs of RAS to ensure consistent results. This work aimed to discuss different approaches and produce guidance on evaluating RAS. Methods A consensus conference research methodology was adopted. A panel of 14 experts was assembled with international experience and representing relevant stakeholders: clinicians, health economists, HTA practitioners, policy makers, and industry. A review of previous HTAs was performed and seven key themes were extracted from the literature for consideration. Over five meetings, the panel discussed the key themes and formulated consensus statements. Results A total of ninety-eight previous HTAs were identified from twenty-five total countries. The seven key themes were evidence inclusion and exclusion, patient- and clinician-reported outcomes, the learning curve, allocation of costs, appropriate time horizons, economic analysis methods, and robotic ecosystem/wider benefits. Conclusions Robotic surgical platforms are tools, not therapies. Their value varies according to context and should be considered across therapeutic areas and stakeholders. The principles set out in this paper should help HTA bodies at all levels to evaluate RAS. This work may serve as a case study for rapidly developing areas in MedTech that require particular consideration for HTAs.</p

Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: : A framework and recommendations for further research

Priority-setting in health is risky and challenging, particularly in resource-constrained settings. It is not simply a narrow technical exercise, and involves the mobilisation of a wide range of capacities among stakeholders – not only the technical capacity to “do” research in economic evaluations. Using the Individuals, Nodes, Networks and Environment (INNE) framework, we identify those stakeholders, whose capacity needs will vary along the evidence-to-policy continuum. Policymakers and healthcare managers require the capacity to commission and use relevant evidence (including evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, and of social values); academics need to understand and respond to decision-makers’ needs to produce relevant research. The health system at all levels will need institutional capacity building to incentivise routine generation and use of evidence. Knowledge brokers, including priority-setting agencies (such as England’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Health Interventions and Technology Assessment Program, Thailand) and the media can play an important role in facilitating engagement and knowledge transfer between the various actors. Especially at the outset but at every step, it is critical that patients and the public understand that trade-offs are inherent in priority-setting, and careful efforts should be made to engage them, and to hear their views throughout the process. There is thus no single approach to capacity building; rather a spectrum of activities that recognises the roles and skills of all stakeholders. A range of methods, including formal and informal training, networking and engagement, and support through collaboration on projects, should be flexibly employed (and tailored to specific needs of each country) to support institutionalisation of evidence-informed priority-setting. Finally, capacity building should be a two-way process; those who build capacity should also attend to their own capacity development in order to sustain and improve impact

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation

Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health