Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T01:28:15.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Increasing decision-makers' access to economic evaluations: Alternative methods of communicating the information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2008

Stephanie J. Thurston ,
Dawn Craig ,
Paul Wilson  and
Michael F. Drummond
Stephanie J. Thurston
Affiliation:
Pharmerit Ltd.
Dawn Craig
Affiliation:
The University of York
Paul Wilson
Affiliation:
The University of York
Michael F. Drummond
Affiliation:
The University of York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Although the importance of economic evaluations is recognized, research suggests the ways in which studies are summarized may not be optimal for a busy decision maker with little training in economics methodology. Therefore, the objective of this study was to seek decision makers' views on different summary formats, including a score, short summary, and structured abstracts of different degrees of detail.

Methods: We contacted 2,400 people, of which 84 decision makers volunteered and were presented, cumulatively, with different formats and asked whether these provided sufficient detail on the methodology and results of an economic study.

Results: From the fifty decision makers who responded to the questionnaire, it was found that the preferred combination was a very short summary, plus a more detailed structured abstract. It was also found that decision makers with economics training preferred the most detailed format, partly reflecting their reasons for consulting economic evaluations.

Conclusions: Decision makers require both an initial screen of study content, plus more detail should they find the study relevant or interesting.

Keywords

Information disseminationCost-effectivenessDecision making
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 151 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Bryan, S, Williams, I, Mciver, S. Seeing the nice side of cost-effectiveness analysis: A qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals. Health Econ. 2007;16:179–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/crddatabases htm#NHSEED 2007.Google Scholar
3. Chiou, CF, Hay, JW, Wallace, JF et al. , Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care. 2003;41:32–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Drummond, M, Cooke, J, Walley, T. Economic evaluation under managed competition: Evidence from the UK. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:583–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Drummond, MF, Sculpher, MJ, Torrance, GW, O'Brien, BJ. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.Google Scholar
6. Duthie, T, Trueman, P, Chancellor, J, Diez, L. Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom - Phase II. Is health economics ‘for good or evil’? Health Policy. 1999;46:143–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Fink, A. Conducting research literature reviews. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 1998.Google Scholar
8. Fox-Rushby, J, Cairns, JE. Economic evaluation. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
9. Gerard, K, Seymour, J, Smoker, I. A tool to improve quality of reporting published economic analyses. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:100–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Gonzalez-Perez, J. Developing a scoring system to quality assess economic evaluations. Eur J Health Econ. 2002;3:131–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Hoffmann, C, Graf von der Schulenburg, JM. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision-making: A European survey. Health Policy. 2000;52:179–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Hoffmann, C, Stoykova, BA, Nixon, J, et al. Do health-care decision makers find economic evaluations useful? The findings of focus group research in UK health authorities. Value Health. 2002;5:71–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. ISI. Web citation index. ISI web of knowledge 2006. Available at: http://portal.isiknowldege.com/portal.cgi?Destapp=WOS&Func=Frame.Google Scholar
14. Nixon, J, Duffy, S, Armstrong, N, et al. The usefulness of the NHS economic evaluation database to researchers undertaking technology assessment reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:249–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Nixon, J, Phipps, K, Glanville, J, Mugford, M, Drummond, M. Using economic evidence to support decision making: A case study of assertive community treatment within the UK national service framework for mental health. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2002;1:179–190.Google ScholarPubMed
16. Ovid Technologies. Embase. Embase 1996 to 2006 week 23 2006.Google Scholar
17. Ovid Technologies. Medline. Ovid Medline (R) 1996 to 2006 week 1 2006.Google Scholar
18. Ross, J. The use of economic evaluation in health care: Australian decision-maker's perceptions. Health Policy. 1995;31:103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Wallace, JF, Weingarten, SR, Chiou, CF, et al. The limited incorporation of economic analyses in clinical practice guidelines. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:210–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Wiley-Interscience. The Cochrane Library Online. Wiley Interscience 2006. Available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/mrwhome/106568753/HOME.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Thurston supplementary material

Examples of abstracts

Download Thurston supplementary material(File)
File 41.5 KB