33 research outputs found
Incorporating cost-effectiveness data in a fair process for priority setting efforts Comment on “Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden”
Cost-effectiveness data is useful for use in priority setting decisions in order to improve the efficiency of resources
used. This paper thereby responds to Eckard
et al
. which addressed the use of cost-effectiveness data in the actual
prioritization decisions in the Swedish national clinical guidelines for heart diseases. Based on a set of experiences
on the use of economic evaluation in priority setting processes, this paper emphasizes the potential approach to
incorporating cost-effectiveness data in the prioritization process to enhance transparency of the decisions, and
highlights the importance of designing a fair decision-making process that can enforce the sustained implementation
of cost-effectiveness data
The EVIDEM framework and its usefulness for priority setting across a broad range of health interventions
Contains fulltext :
98405.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access
Multi-criteria decision analysis for setting priorities on HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand
Contains fulltext :
108744.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: A wide range of preventive, treatment, and care programs for HIV/AIDS are currently available and some of them have been implemented in Thailand. Policy makers are now facing challenges on how the scarce resources for HIV/AIDS control can be spent more wisely. Although effectiveness and cost-effectiveness information is useful for guiding policy decisions, empirical evidence indicates the importance of other criteria, such as equity and the characteristics of the target population, also play important roles in priority setting. This study aims to experiment with the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to prioritise interventions in HIV/AIDS control in Thailand. METHODS: We used MCDA to rank 40 HIV/AIDS interventions on the basis of the priority setting criteria put forward by three groups of stakeholders including policy makers, people living with HIV/AIDs (PLWHA), and village health volunteers (VHVs). MCDA incorporated an explicit component of deliberation to let stakeholders reflect on the rank ordering, and adapt where necessary. RESULTS: Upon deliberation, policy makers expressed a preference for programs that target high risk groups such as men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and female sex workers. The VHVs preferred interventions that target the youth or the general population, and gave lower priority to programs that target high risk groups. PLWHA gave all interventions the same priority. The rank order correlation between the priorities as expressed before and after deliberation was 37% among the policy makers and 46% among the VHVs. CONCLUSION: This study documented the feasibility of MCDA to prioritize HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand, and has shown the usefulness of a deliberative process as an integrated component of MCDA. MCDA holds potential to contribute to a more transparent and accountable priority setting process, and further application of this approach in the prioritisation of health interventions is warranted
A Cost Function Analysis of Shigellosis in Thailand
Objective: The purpose of this study was to develop a cost function model to estimate the public treatment cost of shigellosis patients in Thailand. Methods: This study is an incidence-based cost-of-illness analysis from a provider's perspective. The sample cases in this study were shigellosis patients residing in Kaengkhoi District, Saraburi Province, Thailand. All diarrhea patients who came to the health-care centers in Kaengkhoi District, Kaengkhoi District Hospital and Saraburi Regional Hospital during the period covering May 2002 to April 2003 were tested for Shigella spp. The sample for our study included all patients with culture that confirmed the presence of shigellosis. Public treatment cost was defined as the costs incurred by the health-care service facilities arising from individual cases. The cost was calculated based on the number of services that were utilized (clinic visits, hospitalization, pharmaceuticals, and laboratory investigations), as well as the unit cost of the services (material, labor and capital costs). The data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Furthermore, the stepwise multiple regressions were employed to create a cost function, and the uncertainty was tested by a one-way sensitivity analysis of varying discount rate, cost category, and drug prices. Results: Cost estimates were based from 137 episodes of 130 patients. Ninety-four percent of them received treatment as outpatients. One-fifth of the episodes were children aged less than 5 years old. The average public treatment cost was US1 = 38.084 Thai baht). The majority of the treatment cost (59.3%) was consumed by the hospitalized patients, though they only accounted for 5.8% of all episodes. The sensitivity analysis on the component of costs and drug prices showed a variation in the public treatment cost ranging from US9.38 (−4.20% and 8.43% of the base-case, respectively). The public treatment cost model has an adjusted R2 of 0.788. The positive predictor variables were types of services (inpatient and outpatient), types of health-care facilities (health center, district hospital, regional hospital), and insurance schemes (civil servants medical benefit scheme, social security scheme and universal health coverage scheme). Treatment cost was estimated for various scenarios based on the fitted cost model. Conclusion: The average public treatment cost of shigellosis in Thailand was estimated in this study. Service types, health-care facilities, and insurance schemes were the predictors used to predict nearly 80% of the cost. The estimated cost based on the fitted model can be employed for hospital management and health-care planning
Thai stakeholders’ awareness and perceptions of the patient adverse event reporting system for herbal medicines: a qualitative study
Background: In Thailand, the consumption of herbal medicines has been increasing. Adverse events (AEs) of herbal medicines have been identified through the spontaneous reporting system. However, the number of patients reporting AEs of herbal medicines remains limited. Aim: To explore the awareness and perceptions about the patient reporting system and to explore attitudes towards safety of herbal medicines, experiences, and intention to report AEs of herbal medicines. Method: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with stakeholders (patients, community pharmacists, village health volunteers, and consumers who had experienced submitting a complaint about health products to the Consumers Foundation). Additionally, a focus group discussion was held with stakeholders (academics, herbal medicine manufacturers, healthcare professionals, policy maker who was responsible for promoting the use of herbal medicines, pharmacovigilance staff, patient, and representative from patient organisations). The data were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Fifty participants were interviewed and the focus group discussion included 12 participants. Patients had positive attitudes towards the safety of herbal medicines. Lack of awareness of the patient reporting system was identified. Nevertheless, all stakeholders acknowledged the importance of the safety monitoring of herbal medicines and indicated a willingness to report AEs via the patient reporting system in the future. A simple reporting system, a variety of reporting channels, the provision of feedback, and providing rewards would motivate patients to report AEs. Conclusion: Although there is a lack of awareness, this provides a great opportunity to improve patient AE reporting system for herbal medicines in Thailand
Cost-effectiveness modelling studies of all preventive measures against rabies: A systematic review.
Rabies is one of the most feared infectious diseases worldwide, predominantly occurring in Asia and Africa where rabies is endemic in domestic dog populations. Whereas previous studies have demonstrated mass dog vaccination and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) as the most effective control strategies, successful rabies elimination has yet to be realized as these recognized effective interventions continue to face challenges of limited accessibility. In the light of new evidence towards improving programmatic feasibility and clinical practice in rabies control especially among endemic countries, a systematic review was undertaken to identify cost-effectiveness modelling studies of rabies preventive measures and to provide a critical review of published evidence through comparative evaluation and model quality assessment, and a synthesis of key findings based thereon. Our search through MEDLINE and SCOPUS identified a total of 17 studies which mostly focused on estimating the impact of increasing PEP and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) access, human rabies elimination scenarios using mass dog vaccinations only or complemented with PEP strategy. While no significant methodological inconsistency across studies was identified and the extent of reporting is generally high, we note several points for quality and internal validity improvement. Assessment of modelling approach showed that decision tree models had similar pathways. The results of the studies suggest that interventions would be cost-effective at the cost-effectiveness threshold of 1 to 3 times per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as recommended by the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health's GDP based thresholds, compared with no intervention in rabies endemic countries. When compared across studies which reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) as cost per QALY gained or DALY averted in international dollars adjusted by purchasing power parity conversion rate, PEP vaccination yields less cost per DALY averted or QALY gained due to one year-horizon assessment compared to canine vaccination at 4- or 10-year-time horizon
Incorporating MCDA into HTA: challenges and potential solutions, with a focus on lower income settings
Background: Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has the potential to bring more structure and transparency to health technology assessment (HTA). The objective of this paper is to highlight key methodological and practical challenges facing the use of MCDA for HTA, with a particular focus on lower and middle-income countries (LMICs), and to highlight potential solutions to these challenges. Methodological challenges: Key lessons from existing applications of MCDA to HTA are summarized, including: that the socio-technical design of the MCDA reflect the local decision problem; the criteria set properties of additive models are understood and applied; and the alternative approaches for estimating opportunity cost, and the challenges with these approaches are understood. Practical challenges: Existing efforts to implement HTA in LMICs suggest a number of lessons that can help overcome the practical challenges facing the implementation of MCDA in LMICs, including: adapting inputs from other settings and from expert opinion; investing in technical capacity; embedding the MCDA in the decision-making process; and ensuring that the MCDA design reflects local cultural and social factors. Conclusion: MCDA has the potential to improve decision making in LMICs. For this potential to be achieved, it is important that the lessons from existing applications of MCDA are learned
Criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand: a discrete choice experiment
Contains fulltext :
87849.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Although a sizeable budget is available for HIV/AIDS control in Thailand, there will never be enough resources to implement every programme for all target groups at full scale. As such, there is a need to prioritize HIV/AIDS programmes. However, as of yet, there is no evidence on the criteria that should guide the priority setting of HIV/AIDS programmes in Thailand, including their relative importance. Also, it is not clear whether different stakeholders share similar preferences. METHODS: Criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand were identified in group discussions with policy makers, people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), and community members (i.e. village health volunteers (VHVs)). On the basis of these, discrete choice experiments were designed and administered among 28 policy makers, 74 PLWHA, and 50 VHVs. RESULTS: In order of importance, policy makers expressed a preference for interventions that are highly effective, that are preventive of nature (as compared to care and treatment), that are based on strong scientific evidence, that target high risk groups (as compared to teenagers, adults, or children), and that target both genders (rather than only men or women). PLWHA and VHVs had similar preferences but the former group expressed a strong preference for care and treatment for AIDS patients. CONCLUSIONS: The study has identified criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand, and revealed that different stakeholders have different preferences vis-a-vis these criteria. This could be used for a broad ranking of interventions, and as such as a basis for more detailed priority setting, taking into account also qualitative criteria
Multicriteria decision analysis to support HTA agencies : benefits, limitations, and the way forward
Objective
Recent years have witnessed an increased interest in the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support health technology assessment (HTA) agencies for setting healthcare priorities. However, its implementation to date has been criticized for being “entirely mechanistic,” ignoring opportunity costs, and not following best practice guidelines. This article provides guidance on the use of MCDA in this context.
Methods
The present study was based on a systematic review and consensus development. We developed a typology of MCDA studies and good implementation practice. We reviewed 37 studies over the period 1990 to 2018 on their compliance with good practice and developed recommendations. We reached consensus among authors over the course of several review rounds.
Results
We identified 3 MCDA study types: qualitative MCDA, quantitative MCDA, and MCDA with decision rules. The types perform differently in terms of quality, consistency, and transparency of recommendations on healthcare priorities. We advise HTA agencies to always include a deliberative component. Agencies should, at a minimum, undertake qualitative MCDA. The use of quantitative MCDA has additional benefits but also poses design challenges. MCDA with decision rules, used by HTA agencies in The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and typically referred to as structured deliberation, has the potential to further improve the formulation of recommendations but has not yet been subjected to broad experimentation and evaluation.
Conclusion
MCDA holds large potential to support HTA agencies in setting healthcare priorities, but its implementation needs to be improved
Incorporating Cost-Effectiveness Data in a Fair Process for Priority Setting Efforts; Comment on “Use of Cost-Effectiveness Data in Priority Setting Decisions: Experiences from the National Guidelines for Heart Diseases in Sweden”
Cost-effectiveness data is useful for use in priority setting decisions in order to improve the efficiency of resources used. This paper thereby responds to Eckard et al. which addressed the use of cost-effectiveness data in the actual prioritization decisions in the Swedish national clinical guidelines for heart diseases. Based on a set of experiences on the use of economic evaluation in priority setting processes, this paper emphasizes the potential approach to incorporating cost-effectiveness data in the prioritization process to enhance transparency of the decisions, and highlights the importance of designing a fair decision-making process that can enforce the sustained implementation of cost-effectiveness data