Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 11. Incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability and resource implications

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the 11(th )of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability and resource implications in guidelines and recommendations. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: When is it important to incorporate cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability considerations in WHO guidelines (which topics)? • For cost-effectiveness: The need for cost/effectiveness information should be dictated by the specific question, of which several may be addressed in a single guideline. It is proposed that the indications for undertaking a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) could be a starting point for determining which recommendation(s) in the guideline would benefit from such analysis. • For resource implications/affordability: The resource implications of each individual recommendation need to be considered when implementation issues are being discussed. How can cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability be explicitly taken into account in WHO guidelines? • For cost-effectiveness: ∘ If data are available, the ideal time to consider cost-effectiveness is during the evidence gathering and synthesizing stage. However, because of the inconsistent availability of CEAs and the procedural difficulty associated with adjusting results from different CEAs to make them comparable, it is also possible for cost-effectiveness to be considered during the stage of developing recommendations. ∘ Depending on the quantity and quality and relevance of the data available, such data can be considered in a qualitative way or in a quantitative way, ranging from a listing of the costs to a modelling exercise. At the very least, a qualitative approach like a commentary outlining the economic issues that need to be considered is necessary. If a quantitative approach is to be used, the full model should be transparent and comprehensive. • For resource implications/affordability: ∘ Resource implications, including health system changes, for each recommendation in a WHO guideline should be explored. At the minimum, a qualitative description that can serve as a gross indicator of the amount of resources needed, relative to current practice, should be provided. How does one provide guidance in contextualizing guideline recommendations at the country level based on considerations of cost-effectiveness, resource implications and affordability? • All models should be made available and ideally are designed to allow for analysts to make changes in key parameters and reapply results in their own country. • In the global guidelines, scenarios and extensive sensitivity/uncertainty analysis can be applied. Resource implications for WHO • From the above, it is clear that guidelines development groups will need a health economist. There is need to ensure that this is included in the budget for guidelines and that there is in-house support for this as well

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 9. Grading evidence and recommendations

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the ninth of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on grading evidence and recommendations in guidelines. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct a full systematic review ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: Should WHO grade the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations? • Users of recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the underlying evidence and the recommendations. The degree of confidence depends on a number of factors and requires complex judgments. These judgments should be made explicitly in WHO recommendations. A systematic and explicit approach to making judgments about the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations can help to prevent errors, facilitate critical appraisal of these judgments, and can help to improve communication of this information. What criteria should be used to grade evidence and recommendations? • Both the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations should be graded. The criteria used to grade the strength of recommendations should include the quality of the underlying evidence, but should not be limited to that. • The approach to grading should be one that has wide international support and is suitable for a wide range of different types of recommendations. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which is currently suggested in the Guidelines for WHO Guidelines, is being used by an increasing number of other organizations internationally. It should be used more consistently by WHO. Further developments of this approach should ensure its wide applicability. Should WHO use the same grading system for all of its recommendations? • Although there are arguments for and against using the same grading system across a wide range of different types of recommendations, WHO should use a uniform grading system to prevent confusion for developers and users of recommendations

Building blocks for meta-synthesis: data integration tables for summarising, mapping, and synthesising evidence on interventions for communicating with health consumers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Systematic reviews have developed into a powerful method for summarising and synthesising evidence. The rise in systematic reviews creates a methodological opportunity and associated challenges and this is seen in the development of overviews, or reviews of systematic reviews. One of these challenges is how to summarise evidence from systematic reviews of complex interventions for inclusion in an overview. Interventions for communicating with and involving consumers in their care are frequently complex. In this article we outline a method for preparing data integration tables to enable review-level synthesis of the evidence on interventions for communication and participation in health.</p> <p>Methods and Results</p> <p>Systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group were utilised as the basis from which to develop linked steps for data extraction, evidence assessment and synthesis. The resulting output is called a data integration table. Four steps were undertaken in designing the data integration tables: first, relevant information for a comprehensive picture of the characteristics of the review was identified from each review, extracted and summarised. Second, results for the outcomes of the review were assessed and translated to standardised evidence statements. Third, outcomes and evidence statements were mapped into an outcome taxonomy that we developed, using language specific to the field of interventions for communication and participation. Fourth, the implications of the review were assessed after the mapping step clarified the level of evidence available for each intervention.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The data integration tables represent building blocks for constructing overviews of review-level evidence and for the conduct of meta-synthesis. Individually, each table aims to improve the consistency of reporting on the features and effects of interventions for communication and participation; provides a broad assessment of the strength of evidence derived from different methods of analysis; indicates a degree of certainty with results; and reports outcomes and gaps in the evidence in a consistent and coherent way. In addition, individual tables can serve as a valuable tool for accurate dissemination of large amounts of complex information on communication and participation to professionals as well as to members of the public.</p

A review of the epidemiology of oral and pharyngeal carcinoma: update

Oral and pharyngeal cancers are the sixth most common cancers internationally. In the United States, there are about 30,000 new cases of oral and pharyngeal cancers diagnosed each year. Furthermore, survival rates for oral and pharyngeal cancers have not significantly improved over the last three decades. This review examines the scientific literature surrounding the epidemiology of oral and pharyngeal cancers, including but not limited to risk factors, disparities, preventative factors, and the epidemiology in countries outside the United States. The literature review revealed that much of the research in this field has been focused on alcohol, tobacco, and their combined effects on oral and pharyngeal cancers. The literature on oral and pharyngeal cancer disparities among racial groups also appears to be growing. However, less literature is available on the influence of dietary factors on these cancers. Finally, effective interventions for the reduction of oral and pharyngeal cancers are discussed

Social factors related to the clinical severity of influenza cases in Spain during the A(H1N1)2009 virus pandemic

Background During the 2009 influenza pandemic, a change in the type of patients most often affected by influenza was observed. The objective of this study was to assess the role of individual and social determinants in hospitalizations due to influenza A (H1N1) 2009 infection. Methods We studied hospitalized patients (cases) and outpatients (controls) with confirmed influenza A (H1N1) 2009 infection. A standardized questionnaire was used to collect data. Variables that might be related to the hospitalization of influenza cases were compared by estimation of the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the variables entered into binomial logistic regression models. Results Hospitalization due to pandemic A (H1N1) 2009 influenza virus infections was associated with non-Caucasian ethnicity (OR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.17 − 4.08), overcrowding (OR: 2.84, 95% CI 1.20 − 6.72), comorbidity and the lack of previous preventive information (OR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.50 − 4.83). Secondary or higher education was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36 − 0.87) Conclusions In addition to individual factors such as comorbidity, other factors such as educational level, ethnicity or overcrowding were associated with hospitalization due to A (H1N1) 2009 influenza virus infections

The effectiveness of an intervention in increasing community health clinician provision of preventive care: a study protocol of a non-randomised, multiple-baseline trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The primary behavioural risks for the most common causes of mortality and morbidity in developed countries are tobacco smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity. Evidence, guidelines and policies support routine clinician delivery of care to prevent these risks within primary care settings. Despite the potential afforded by community health services for the delivery of such preventive care, the limited evidence available suggests it is provided at suboptimal levels. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a multi-strategic practice change intervention in increasing clinician's routine provision of preventive care across a network of community health services.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A multiple baseline study will be conducted involving all 56 community health facilities in a single health district in New South Wales, Australia. The facilities will be allocated to one of three administratively-defined groups. A 12 month practice change intervention will be implemented in all facilities in each group to facilitate clinician risk assessment of eligible clients, and clinician provision of brief advice and referral to those identified as being 'at risk'. The intervention will be implemented in a non-random sequence across the three facility groups. Repeated, cross-sectional measurement of clinician provision of preventive care for four individual risks (smoking, poor nutrition, risky alcohol use, and physical inactivity) will occur continuously for all three facility groups for 54 months via telephone interviews. The interviews will be conducted with randomly selected clients who have visited a community health facility in the last two weeks. Data collection will commence 12 months prior to the implementation of the intervention in the first group, and continue for six months following the completion of the intervention in the last group. As a secondary source of data, telephone interviews will be undertaken prior to and following the intervention with randomly selected samples of clinicians from each facility group to assess the reported provision of preventive care, and the acceptability of the practice change intervention and implementation.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The study will provide novel evidence regarding the ability to increase clinician's routine provision of preventive care across a network of community health facilities.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australian Clinical Trials Registry <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12611001284954.aspx">ACTRN12611001284954</a></p> <p>Universal Trial Number (UTN)</p> <p>U1111-1126-3465</p