Cargando…

Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: With rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a va...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mayer, Susanne, Kiss, Noemi, Łaszewska, Agata, Simon, Judit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5555669/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28806728
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183116
_version_ 1783256955014348800
author Mayer, Susanne
Kiss, Noemi
Łaszewska, Agata
Simon, Judit
author_facet Mayer, Susanne
Kiss, Noemi
Łaszewska, Agata
Simon, Judit
author_sort Mayer, Susanne
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: With rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for decision-making. The aim of this review is to assess the availability and consistency of costing evidence that could be used for decision-making in Austria. It describes systematically the current economic evaluation and costing studies landscape focusing on the applied costing methods and their reporting standards. Findings are discussed in terms of their likely impacts on evidence-based decision-making and potential suggestions for areas of development. METHODS: A systematic literature review of English and German language peer-reviewed as well as grey literature (2004–2015) was conducted to identify Austrian economic analyses. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SSCI, EconLit, NHS EED and Scopus were searched. Publication and study characteristics, costing methods, reporting standards and valuation sources were systematically synthesised and assessed. RESULTS: A total of 93 studies were included. 87% were journal articles, 13% were reports. 41% of all studies were full economic evaluations, mostly cost-effectiveness analyses. Based on relevant standards the most commonly observed limitations were that 60% of the studies did not clearly state an analytical perspective, 25% of the studies did not provide the year of costing, 27% did not comprehensively list all valuation sources, and 38% did not report all applied unit costs. CONCLUSION: There are substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods and reporting standards in economic analyses in Austria, which may contribute to a low acceptance and lack of interest in economic evaluation-informed decision making. To improve comparability and quality of future studies, national costing guidelines should be updated with more specific methodological guidance and a national reference cost library should be set up to allow harmonisation of valuation methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5555669
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55556692017-08-28 Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review Mayer, Susanne Kiss, Noemi Łaszewska, Agata Simon, Judit PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: With rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for decision-making. The aim of this review is to assess the availability and consistency of costing evidence that could be used for decision-making in Austria. It describes systematically the current economic evaluation and costing studies landscape focusing on the applied costing methods and their reporting standards. Findings are discussed in terms of their likely impacts on evidence-based decision-making and potential suggestions for areas of development. METHODS: A systematic literature review of English and German language peer-reviewed as well as grey literature (2004–2015) was conducted to identify Austrian economic analyses. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SSCI, EconLit, NHS EED and Scopus were searched. Publication and study characteristics, costing methods, reporting standards and valuation sources were systematically synthesised and assessed. RESULTS: A total of 93 studies were included. 87% were journal articles, 13% were reports. 41% of all studies were full economic evaluations, mostly cost-effectiveness analyses. Based on relevant standards the most commonly observed limitations were that 60% of the studies did not clearly state an analytical perspective, 25% of the studies did not provide the year of costing, 27% did not comprehensively list all valuation sources, and 38% did not report all applied unit costs. CONCLUSION: There are substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods and reporting standards in economic analyses in Austria, which may contribute to a low acceptance and lack of interest in economic evaluation-informed decision making. To improve comparability and quality of future studies, national costing guidelines should be updated with more specific methodological guidance and a national reference cost library should be set up to allow harmonisation of valuation methods. Public Library of Science 2017-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5555669/ /pubmed/28806728 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183116 Text en © 2017 Mayer et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Mayer, Susanne
Kiss, Noemi
Łaszewska, Agata
Simon, Judit
Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review
title Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review
title_full Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review
title_fullStr Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review
title_short Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review
title_sort costing evidence for health care decision-making in austria: a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5555669/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28806728
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183116
work_keys_str_mv AT mayersusanne costingevidenceforhealthcaredecisionmakinginaustriaasystematicreview
AT kissnoemi costingevidenceforhealthcaredecisionmakinginaustriaasystematicreview
AT łaszewskaagata costingevidenceforhealthcaredecisionmakinginaustriaasystematicreview
AT simonjudit costingevidenceforhealthcaredecisionmakinginaustriaasystematicreview