The Development of the Guide to Economic Analysis and Research (GEAR) Online Resource for Low- and Middle-Income Countries' Health Economics Practitioners: A Commentary

Public health authorities around the world are increasingly using economic evaluation to set priorities and inform decision making in health policy, especially in the development of health benefit packages. Nevertheless, researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) encounter many barriers when conducting economic evaluations. In 2015, the Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program identified key technical and context-specific challenges faced in conducting and using health economic evaluations in LMICs. On the basis of these research findings, the Guide to Economic Analysis and Research (GEAR) online resource (www.gear4health.com) was developed as a reliable aid to researchers in LMICs that would help overcome those challenges. Funded by the Thailand Research Fund and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GEAR is a free online resource that provides a visual aid tool for planning economic evaluation studies (GEAR mind maps), a repository of national and international economic evaluation guidelines (GEAR guideline comparison), and an active link to a network of volunteer international experts (GEAR: Ask an expert). GEAR will evolve over time to provide relevant, reliable, and up-to-date information through inputs from its users (e.g., periodic survey on methodological challenges) and experts (e.g., in responding to users' questions). The objective of this commentary was to give a brief description of the development and key features of this unique collective information hub aimed at facilitating high-quality research and empowering health care decision makers and stakeholders to use economic evaluation evidence

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

Tackling the 3 big challenges confronting health technology assessment development in Asia : a commentary

There has been continuous development in the field of health technology assessment (HTA) owing to the added value of HTA in supporting healthcare reimbursement decisions. Collaboration and engagement among countries in Asia has been carried out to share experiences and learning on the barriers and factors facilitating the implementation and use of HTA in policy making. A symposium on the topic of Health Technology Assessment (HTA): Selecting the Highest Value Care was held on January 10, 2019 at the National University of Singapore, during which 3 major challenges confronting HTA development in Asia were identified. The symposium also offered possible ways to overcome the challenges

Comparing 3 Approaches for Making Vaccine Adoption Decisions in Thailand

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed the Total System Effectiveness (TSE) framework to assist national policy-makers in prioritizing vaccines. The pilot was launched in Thailand to explore the potential use of TSE in a country with established governance structures and accountable decision-making processes for immunization policy. While the existing literature informs vaccine adoption decisions in GAVI-eligible countries, this study attempts to address a gap in the literature by examining the policy process of a non-GAVI eligible country.Methods: A rotavirus vaccine (RVV) test case was used to compare the decision criteria made by the existing processes (Expanded Program on Immunization [EPI], and National List of Essential Medicines [NLEM]) for vaccine prioritization and the TSE-pilot model, using Thailand specific data. Results: The existing decision-making processes in Thailand and TSE were found to offer similar recommendations on the selection of a RVV product. Conclusion: The authors believe that TSE can provide a well-reasoned and step by step approach for countries, especially low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to develop a systematic and transparent decision-making process for immunization policy

Variation of health-related quality of life assessed by caregivers and patients affected by severe childhood infections.

BACKGROUND: The agreement between self-reported and proxy measures of health status in ill children is not well established. This study aimed to quantify the variation in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) derived from young patients and their carers using different instruments. METHODS: A hospital-based cross-sectional survey was conducted between August 2010 and March 2011. Children with meningitis, bacteremia, pneumonia, acute otitis media, hearing loss, chronic lung disease, epilepsy, mild mental retardation, severe mental retardation, and mental retardation combined with epilepsy, aged between five to 14 years in seven tertiary hospitals were selected for participation in this study. The Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2), and Mark 3 (HUI3), and the EuroQoL Descriptive System (EQ-5D) and Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS) were applied to both paediatric patients (self-assessment) and caregivers (proxy-assessment). RESULTS: The EQ-5D scores were lowest for acute conditions such as meningitis, bacteremia, and pneumonia, whereas the HUI3 scores were lowest for most chronic conditions such as hearing loss and severe mental retardation. Comparing patient and proxy scores (n = 74), the EQ-5D exhibited high correlation (r = 0.77) while in the HUI2 and HUI3 patient and caregiver scores were moderately correlated (r = 0.58 and 0.67 respectively). The mean difference between self and proxy-assessment using the HUI2, HUI3, EQ-5D and EQ-VAS scores were 0.03, 0.05, -0.03 and -0.02, respectively. In hearing-impaired and chronic lung patients the self-rated HRQOL differed significantly from their caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: The use of caregivers as proxies for measuring HRQOL in young patients affected by pneumococcal infection and its sequelae should be employed with caution. Given the high correlation between instruments, each of the HRQOL instruments appears acceptable apart from the EQ-VAS which exhibited low correlation with the others

Using health technology assessment to set priority, inform target product profiles, and design clinical study for health innovation

10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121000Technological Forecasting and Social Change17212100

Cost-effectiveness plane of lifetime cost and effectiveness of four treatment strategies.

<p>Cost-effectiveness plane of lifetime cost and effectiveness of four treatment strategies.</p

Acceptability curves of the cost-effectiveness at the different ceiling threshold of four treatment strategies for chronic HCV infection.

<p>Acceptability curves of the cost-effectiveness at the different ceiling threshold of four treatment strategies for chronic HCV infection.</p

Utility parameters.

<p>Utility parameters.</p