Cargando…

Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND: Methods for systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions have focused mainly on addressing the question of 'What works?’ or 'Is this intervention effective in achieving one or more specific outcomes?’ Addressing the question 'Is it worth it given the resources...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shemilt, Ian, McDaid, David, Marsh, Kevin, Henderson, Catherine, Bertranou, Evelina, Mallander, Jacqueline, Drummond, Mike, Mugford, Miranda, Vale, Luke
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3849717/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24050504
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-83
_version_ 1782293976217288704
author Shemilt, Ian
McDaid, David
Marsh, Kevin
Henderson, Catherine
Bertranou, Evelina
Mallander, Jacqueline
Drummond, Mike
Mugford, Miranda
Vale, Luke
author_facet Shemilt, Ian
McDaid, David
Marsh, Kevin
Henderson, Catherine
Bertranou, Evelina
Mallander, Jacqueline
Drummond, Mike
Mugford, Miranda
Vale, Luke
author_sort Shemilt, Ian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Methods for systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions have focused mainly on addressing the question of 'What works?’ or 'Is this intervention effective in achieving one or more specific outcomes?’ Addressing the question 'Is it worth it given the resources available?’ has received less attention. This latter question can be addressed by applying an economic lens to the systematic review process. This paper reflects on the value and desire for the consideration by end users for coverage of an economic perspective in a Cochrane review and outlines two potential approaches and future directions. METHODS: Two frameworks to guide review authors who are seeking to include an economic perspective are outlined. The first involves conducting a full systematic review of economic evaluations that is integrated into a review of intervention effects. The second involves developing a brief economic commentary. The two approaches share a set of common stages but allow the tailoring of the economic component of the Cochrane review to the skills and resources available to the review team. RESULTS: The number of studies using the methods outlined in the paper is limited, and further examples are needed both to explore the value of these approaches and to further develop them. The rate of progress will hinge on the organisational leadership, capacity and resources available to the CCEMG, author teams and other Cochrane entities. Particular methodological challenges to overcome relate to understanding the key economic trade-offs and casual relationships for a given decision problem and informing the development of evaluations designed to support local decision-makers. CONCLUSIONS: Methods for incorporating economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane intervention reviews are established. Their role is not to provide a precise estimate of 'cost-effectiveness’ but rather to help end-users of Cochrane reviews to determine the implications of the economic components of reviews for their own specific decisions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3849717
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38497172013-12-05 Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane reviews Shemilt, Ian McDaid, David Marsh, Kevin Henderson, Catherine Bertranou, Evelina Mallander, Jacqueline Drummond, Mike Mugford, Miranda Vale, Luke Syst Rev Methodology BACKGROUND: Methods for systematic reviews of the effects of health interventions have focused mainly on addressing the question of 'What works?’ or 'Is this intervention effective in achieving one or more specific outcomes?’ Addressing the question 'Is it worth it given the resources available?’ has received less attention. This latter question can be addressed by applying an economic lens to the systematic review process. This paper reflects on the value and desire for the consideration by end users for coverage of an economic perspective in a Cochrane review and outlines two potential approaches and future directions. METHODS: Two frameworks to guide review authors who are seeking to include an economic perspective are outlined. The first involves conducting a full systematic review of economic evaluations that is integrated into a review of intervention effects. The second involves developing a brief economic commentary. The two approaches share a set of common stages but allow the tailoring of the economic component of the Cochrane review to the skills and resources available to the review team. RESULTS: The number of studies using the methods outlined in the paper is limited, and further examples are needed both to explore the value of these approaches and to further develop them. The rate of progress will hinge on the organisational leadership, capacity and resources available to the CCEMG, author teams and other Cochrane entities. Particular methodological challenges to overcome relate to understanding the key economic trade-offs and casual relationships for a given decision problem and informing the development of evaluations designed to support local decision-makers. CONCLUSIONS: Methods for incorporating economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane intervention reviews are established. Their role is not to provide a precise estimate of 'cost-effectiveness’ but rather to help end-users of Cochrane reviews to determine the implications of the economic components of reviews for their own specific decisions. BioMed Central 2013-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC3849717/ /pubmed/24050504 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-83 Text en Copyright © 2013 Shemilt et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Methodology
Shemilt, Ian
McDaid, David
Marsh, Kevin
Henderson, Catherine
Bertranou, Evelina
Mallander, Jacqueline
Drummond, Mike
Mugford, Miranda
Vale, Luke
Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane reviews
title Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane reviews
title_full Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane reviews
title_fullStr Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane reviews
title_full_unstemmed Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane reviews
title_short Issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into Cochrane reviews
title_sort issues in the incorporation of economic perspectives and evidence into cochrane reviews
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3849717/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24050504
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-83
work_keys_str_mv AT shemiltian issuesintheincorporationofeconomicperspectivesandevidenceintocochranereviews
AT mcdaiddavid issuesintheincorporationofeconomicperspectivesandevidenceintocochranereviews
AT marshkevin issuesintheincorporationofeconomicperspectivesandevidenceintocochranereviews
AT hendersoncatherine issuesintheincorporationofeconomicperspectivesandevidenceintocochranereviews
AT bertranouevelina issuesintheincorporationofeconomicperspectivesandevidenceintocochranereviews
AT mallanderjacqueline issuesintheincorporationofeconomicperspectivesandevidenceintocochranereviews
AT drummondmike issuesintheincorporationofeconomicperspectivesandevidenceintocochranereviews
AT mugfordmiranda issuesintheincorporationofeconomicperspectivesandevidenceintocochranereviews
AT valeluke issuesintheincorporationofeconomicperspectivesandevidenceintocochranereviews