Cargando…

More than cost‐effectiveness? Applying a second‐stage filter to improve policy decision making

BACKGROUND: Apart from cost‐effectiveness, considerations like equity and acceptability may affect health‐care priority setting. Preferably, priority setting combines evidence evaluation with an appraisal procedure, to elicit and weigh these considerations. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a structured app...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kan, Kaying, Jörg, Frederike, Lokkerbol, Joran, Mihalopoulos, Cathrine, Buskens, Erik, Schoevers, Robert A., Feenstra, Talitha L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8369110/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34061430
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13277
_version_ 1783739221634187264
author Kan, Kaying
Jörg, Frederike
Lokkerbol, Joran
Mihalopoulos, Cathrine
Buskens, Erik
Schoevers, Robert A.
Feenstra, Talitha L.
author_facet Kan, Kaying
Jörg, Frederike
Lokkerbol, Joran
Mihalopoulos, Cathrine
Buskens, Erik
Schoevers, Robert A.
Feenstra, Talitha L.
author_sort Kan, Kaying
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Apart from cost‐effectiveness, considerations like equity and acceptability may affect health‐care priority setting. Preferably, priority setting combines evidence evaluation with an appraisal procedure, to elicit and weigh these considerations. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a structured approach for eliciting and evaluating a broad range of assessment criteria, including key stakeholders’ values, aiming to support decision makers in priority setting. METHODS: For a set of cost‐effective substitute interventions for depression care, the appraisal criteria were adopted from the Australian Assessing Cost‐Effectiveness initiative. All substitute interventions were assessed in an appraisal, using focus group discussions and semi‐structured interviews conducted among key stakeholders. RESULTS: Appraisal of the substitute cost‐effective interventions yielded an overview of considerations and an overall recommendation for decision makers. Two out of the thirteen pairs were deemed acceptable and realistic, that is investment in therapist‐guided and Internet‐based cognitive behavioural therapy instead of cognitive behavioural therapy in mild depression, and investment in combination therapy rather than individual psychotherapy in severe depression. In the remaining substitution pairs, substantive issues affected acceptability. The key issues identified were as follows: workforce capacity, lack of stakeholder support and the need for change in clinicians’ attitude. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic identification of stakeholders’ considerations allows decision makers to prioritize among cost‐effective policy options. Moreover, this approach entails an explicit and transparent priority‐setting procedure and provides insights into the intended and unintended consequences of using a certain health technology. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients were involved in the conduct of the study for instance, by sharing their values regarding considerations relevant for priority setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8369110
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83691102021-08-23 More than cost‐effectiveness? Applying a second‐stage filter to improve policy decision making Kan, Kaying Jörg, Frederike Lokkerbol, Joran Mihalopoulos, Cathrine Buskens, Erik Schoevers, Robert A. Feenstra, Talitha L. Health Expect Original Articles BACKGROUND: Apart from cost‐effectiveness, considerations like equity and acceptability may affect health‐care priority setting. Preferably, priority setting combines evidence evaluation with an appraisal procedure, to elicit and weigh these considerations. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a structured approach for eliciting and evaluating a broad range of assessment criteria, including key stakeholders’ values, aiming to support decision makers in priority setting. METHODS: For a set of cost‐effective substitute interventions for depression care, the appraisal criteria were adopted from the Australian Assessing Cost‐Effectiveness initiative. All substitute interventions were assessed in an appraisal, using focus group discussions and semi‐structured interviews conducted among key stakeholders. RESULTS: Appraisal of the substitute cost‐effective interventions yielded an overview of considerations and an overall recommendation for decision makers. Two out of the thirteen pairs were deemed acceptable and realistic, that is investment in therapist‐guided and Internet‐based cognitive behavioural therapy instead of cognitive behavioural therapy in mild depression, and investment in combination therapy rather than individual psychotherapy in severe depression. In the remaining substitution pairs, substantive issues affected acceptability. The key issues identified were as follows: workforce capacity, lack of stakeholder support and the need for change in clinicians’ attitude. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic identification of stakeholders’ considerations allows decision makers to prioritize among cost‐effective policy options. Moreover, this approach entails an explicit and transparent priority‐setting procedure and provides insights into the intended and unintended consequences of using a certain health technology. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients were involved in the conduct of the study for instance, by sharing their values regarding considerations relevant for priority setting. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-06-01 2021-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8369110/ /pubmed/34061430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13277 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Kan, Kaying
Jörg, Frederike
Lokkerbol, Joran
Mihalopoulos, Cathrine
Buskens, Erik
Schoevers, Robert A.
Feenstra, Talitha L.
More than cost‐effectiveness? Applying a second‐stage filter to improve policy decision making
title More than cost‐effectiveness? Applying a second‐stage filter to improve policy decision making
title_full More than cost‐effectiveness? Applying a second‐stage filter to improve policy decision making
title_fullStr More than cost‐effectiveness? Applying a second‐stage filter to improve policy decision making
title_full_unstemmed More than cost‐effectiveness? Applying a second‐stage filter to improve policy decision making
title_short More than cost‐effectiveness? Applying a second‐stage filter to improve policy decision making
title_sort more than cost‐effectiveness? applying a second‐stage filter to improve policy decision making
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8369110/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34061430
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13277
work_keys_str_mv AT kankaying morethancosteffectivenessapplyingasecondstagefiltertoimprovepolicydecisionmaking
AT jorgfrederike morethancosteffectivenessapplyingasecondstagefiltertoimprovepolicydecisionmaking
AT lokkerboljoran morethancosteffectivenessapplyingasecondstagefiltertoimprovepolicydecisionmaking
AT mihalopouloscathrine morethancosteffectivenessapplyingasecondstagefiltertoimprovepolicydecisionmaking
AT buskenserik morethancosteffectivenessapplyingasecondstagefiltertoimprovepolicydecisionmaking
AT schoeversroberta morethancosteffectivenessapplyingasecondstagefiltertoimprovepolicydecisionmaking
AT feenstratalithal morethancosteffectivenessapplyingasecondstagefiltertoimprovepolicydecisionmaking