Dataset Information

Multiplier Effects and Compensation Mechanisms for Inclusion in Health Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects may affect productivity losses due to illness, disability, or premature death of individuals. Hence, they are important in estimating productivity losses and productivity costs in the context of economic evaluations of health interventions. This paper presents a systematic literature review of papers focusing on compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects, as well as whether and how they are included in health economic evaluations.

Methods

The systematic literature search was performed covering EconLit and PubMed. A data-extraction form was developed focusing on compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects.

Results

A total of 26 studies were included. Of these, 15 were empirical studies, three studies were methodological studies, two studies combined methodological research with empirical research, four were critical reviews, one study was a critical review combined with methodological research, and one study was a cost-benefit analysis. No uniform definition of compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects was identified. The terminology used to describe compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects varied as well. While the included studies suggest that both multipliers as well as compensation mechanisms substantially impact productivity cost estimates, the available evidence is scarce. Moreover, the generalizability as well as validity of assumptions underlying the calculations are unclear. Available measurement methods for compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects differ in approaches and are hardly validated.

Conclusion

While our review suggests that compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects may have a significant impact on productivity losses and costs, much remains unclear about their features, valid measurement, and correct valuation. This hampers their current inclusion in economic evaluation, and therefore, more research into both phenomena remains warranted.

SUBMITTER: Krol M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10450000 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multiplier Effects and Compensation Mechanisms for Inclusion in Health Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review.

Krol Marieke M Hosseinnia Nikkie N Brouwer Werner W van Roijen Leona Hakkaart LH

PharmacoEconomics 20230817 9

<h4>Background</h4>Compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects may affect productivity losses due to illness, disability, or premature death of individuals. Hence, they are important in estimating productivity losses and productivity costs in the context of economic evaluations of health interventions. This paper presents a systematic literature review of papers focusing on compensation mechanisms and multiplier effects, as well as whether and how they are included in health economic evaluati ...[more]

PMID: 37592122

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the overall evidence of published health-economic evaluation studies on meniscus tear treatment.MethodsOur systematic review focuses on health-economic evaluation studies of meniscus tear treatment interventions found in PubMed and Embase databases. A qualitative, descriptive approach was used to analyze the studies' results and systematically report them following PRISMA guidelines. The health-economic evaluation method for each included study was categorized following one of the four approaches: partial economic evaluation (PEE), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), or cost-utility analysis (CUA). The quality of each included study was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. Comparisons of input variables and outcomes were made, if applicable.ResultsSixteen studies were included; of these, six studies performed PEE, seven studies CUA, two studies CEA, and one study combined CBA, CUA, and CEA. The following economic comparisons were analyzed and showed the respective comparative outcomes: (1) meniscus repair was more cost-effective than arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (meniscectomy) for reparable meniscus tear; (2) non-operative treatment or physical therapy was less costly than meniscectomy for degenerative meniscus tear; (3) physical therapy with delayed meniscectomy was more cost-effective than early meniscectomy for meniscus tear with knee osteoarthritis; (4) meniscectomy without physical therapy was less costly than meniscectomy with physical therapy; (5) meniscectomy was more cost-effective than either meniscus allograft transplantation or meniscus scaffold procedure; (6) the conventional arthroscopic instrument cost was lower than laser-assisted arthroscopy in meniscectomy procedures.ConclusionResults from this review suggest that meniscus repair is the most cost-effective intervention for reparable meniscus tears. Physical therapy followed by delayed meniscectomy is the most cost-effective intervention for degenerative meniscus tears. Meniscus scaffold should be avoided, especially when implemented on a large scale.Level of evidenceSystematic review of level IV studies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health economic evaluations are essential to support health care policy and investment decisions. To date, health economic evaluations in orthotics and prosthetics have focused on discrete components of an orthosis/prosthesis (e.g. a microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee joint) rather than the broader service provided by orthotist/prosthetists. As such, the contribution to orthotic/prosthetic policy and investment decisions is unclear. Whilst there are opportunities to conduct more informative health economic evaluations that describe the costs and benefits of the orthotic/prosthetic service, it is important that prospective research is informed by a critical review of the method design challenges and an understanding of how this research can be improved. The aim of this systematic review is to critically appraise the existing orthotic/prosthetic health economic evaluation literature and therefore determine evidence gaps, critical method design issues and the extent to which the literature informs orthotic/prosthetic policy and investment decisions. METHODS:A comprehensive range of databases-AMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsychINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and specialty health economic databases-will be searched using National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms as well as the title, abstract, and keyword terms. Search terms related to the intervention (e.g. orthosis), including variants used by varying professional disciplines (e.g. brace), will be used in preference to defining the populations that use orthotic and prosthetic services (e.g. people living with rheumatoid arthritis). Search terms related to health economic evaluations will be guided by previously developed and tested search strings and align with recommendations by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be hand-searched for relevant citations, and a forward citation search using Google Scholar will also be conducted to identify early online articles not yet indexed in traditional databases. Original research published in the English language and after 1 January 2000 will be included. The Checklist for Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC)-Extended list will be used to appraise the methodological quality and identify sources of bias. Data extraction and appraisal will be conducted by one reviewer independently using appraisal instrument guidelines and a content specific decision aid with exemplars. A subsequent review by a second researcher will be undertaken to confirm the accuracy of the extraction and appraisal, and a final review by a third where consensus cannot be reached. The data will be extracted to a purpose-built data extraction template with decision-making guidelines to support consistency. Where possible, the findings of the review will be reported as a meta-analysis, although the heterogeneity of the literature will likely mean a narrative review that illuminates method design issues that contribute to imprecision and variation will be more appropriate. DISCUSSION:This protocol has been purposefully designed to summarise the existing evidence and appraise the methodological approaches used and the quality of the health economic evaluations in orthotics and prosthetics. What we learn from this review will be used to guide further work in this area and design more rigorous health economic evaluations into the future. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018116910.

Project description:ObjectiveOur objective was to review economic evaluations of immunization and tuberculosis to determine the extent to which additional unintended consequences were taken into account in the analysis and to describe the methodological approaches used to estimate these, where possible.MethodsWe sourced the vaccine economic evaluations from a previous systematic review by Nymark et al. (2009-2015) and searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to 2019 using the same search strategy. For tuberculosis economic evaluations, we extracted studies from 2009 to 2019 that were published in a previous review by Siapka et al. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance. Studies were classified according to the categories and subcategories (e.g., herd immunity, non-specific effects, and labor productivity) defined in a framework identifying additional unintended consequences by Nymark and Vassall. Where possible, methods for estimating the additional unintended consequences categories and subcategories were described. We evaluated the reporting quality of included studies according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) extraction guideline.ResultsWe identified 177 vaccine cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) between 2009 and 2019 that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 98 included unintended consequences. Of the total 98 CEAs, overall health consequence categories were included 73 times; biological categories: herd immunity 43 times; pathogen response: resistance 15 times; and cross-protection 15 times. For health consequences pertaining to the supply-side (health systems) categories, side effects were included five times. On the nonhealth demand side (intrahousehold), labor productivity was included 60 times. We identified 29 tuberculosis CEAs from 2009 to 2019 that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, six articles included labor productivity, four included indirect transmission effects, and one included resistance. Between 2009 and 2019, only 34% of tuberculosis CEAs included additional unintended consequences, compared with 55% of vaccine CEAs.ConclusionsThe inclusion of additional unintended consequences in economic evaluations of immunization and tuberculosis continues to be limited. Additional unintended consequences of economic benefits, such as those examined in this review and especially those that occur outside the health system, offer valuable information to analysts. Further work on appropriate ways to value these additional unintended consequences is still warranted.

Project description:BackgroundDiabetes structured education programs have been demonstrated to effectively improve glycemic control and self-management behaviors. However, evidence on the health economic evaluation of these programs is limited.ObjectivesTo systematically review the health economic evaluation of structured education programs for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.MethodsThe English databases PUBMED, WEB OF SCIENCE, OVID, COCHRANE LIBRARY, EMBASE, and EBSCO, along with the Chinese databases CNKI, WANFANG, VIP, and SINOMED, were searched from their inception to September 2024. The quality of the literature was assessed using the CHEERS 2022 checklist. A descriptive analysis was performed on the studies included in the review, with all currencies converted to international dollars. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than one times the per capita GDP was considered highly cost-effective, while a ratio between one and three times the per capita GDP was considered cost-effective.ResultsA total of 28 studies from upper-middle-income and high-income countries were included. The average quality score of the included studies was 18.6, indicating a moderate level of reporting quality. Among these, eleven studies demonstrated that diabetes structured education programs were highly cost-effective and twelve were found to be cost-effective. In contrast, three studies were deemed not cost-effective, and two studies provided uncertain results. The ranges of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for short-term, medium-term, and long-term studies were - 520.60 to 65,167.00 dollars, -24,952.22 to 14,465.00 dollars, and -874.00 to 236,991.67 dollars, respectively.ConclusionThis study confirms the cost-effectiveness of structured education programs for diabetes and highlights their importance for patients with type 2 diabetes who have HbA1c levels exceeding 7% and are receiving non-insulin therapy. Additionally, the potential advantages of incorporating telecommunication technologies into structured diabetes education were emphasized. These findings offer valuable insights and guidance for decision-making in diabetes management and clinical practice, contributing to the optimization of medical resource allocation and the improvement of health status and quality of life for patients.

Project description:Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a novel noninvasive treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. SBRT can achieve effective local control, but it requires a relatively high input of resources; this systematic review was performed to assess the cost effectiveness of SBRT in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma to provide a basis for government pricing and medical insurance decision-making. The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang and SinoMed databases were searched to collect economic evaluations of SBRT for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma from the date of database inception through December 31, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted the data and performed a descriptive analysis of the basic characteristics, methods of economic evaluation and main results, as well as the quality and heterogeneity of the reports. A total of 5 studies were included. Among them, the level of heterogeneity was relatively acceptable, with a median score of 90%. Four studies were cost-utility analyses (CUAs), and 1 was a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for sorafenib compared to SBRT was US $114,795 per quality-adjusted life year gained (cost/QALY) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The ICER for proton beam therapy compared to SBRT was US $6465 in patients with inoperable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The ICER for SBRT compared to RFA was US $164,660 for patients with unresectable colorectal cancer (CRC) with liver metastases and US $56,301 for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. For patients with inoperable localized hepatocellular carcinoma, compared with RFA-SBRT therapy, the ICERs for SBRT-SBRT and SBRT-RFA were US $558,679 and US $2197,000, respectively; RFA-RFA was dominated. In conclusion, there is limited evidence suggesting that SBRT could be cost-effective for highly specific subpopulations of HCC patients, and further economic evaluations based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies are needed.

Dataset Information

Multiplier Effects and Compensation Mechanisms for Inclusion in Health Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Multiplier Effects and Compensation Mechanisms for Inclusion in Health Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets