PRIORITIES FOR HEALTH ECONOMIC METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH: RESULTS OF AN EXPERT CONSULTATION.

dc.contributor.authorTordrup, David
dc.contributor.authorChouaid, Christos
dc.contributor.authorCuijpers, Pim
dc.contributor.authorDab, William
dc.contributor.authorvan Dongen, Johanna Maria
dc.contributor.authorEspin, Jaime
dc.contributor.authorJönsson, Bengt
dc.contributor.authorLéonard, Christian
dc.contributor.authorMcDaid, David
dc.contributor.authorMcKee, Martin
dc.contributor.authorMiguel, José Pereira
dc.contributor.authorPatel, Anita
dc.contributor.authorReginster, Jean-Yves
dc.contributor.authorRicciardi, Walter
dc.contributor.authorRutten-van Molken, Maureen
dc.contributor.authorRupel, Valentina Prevolnik
dc.contributor.authorSach, Tracey
dc.contributor.authorSassi, Franco
dc.contributor.authorWaugh, Norman
dc.contributor.authorBertollini, Roberto
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-07T12:27:54Z
dc.date.available2025-01-07T12:27:54Z
dc.date.issued2017-10-30
dc.description.abstractThe importance of economic evaluation in decision making is growing with increasing budgetary pressures on health systems. Diverse economic evidence is available for a range of interventions across national contexts within Europe, but little attention has been given to identifying evidence gaps that, if filled, could contribute to more efficient allocation of resources. One objective of the Research Agenda for Health Economic Evaluation project is to determine the most important methodological evidence gaps for the ten highest burden conditions in the European Union (EU), and to suggest ways of filling these gaps. The highest burden conditions in the EU by Disability Adjusted Life Years were determined using the Global Burden of Disease study. Clinical interventions were identified for each condition based on published guidelines, and economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE were mapped to each intervention. A panel of public health and health economics experts discussed the evidence during a workshop and identified evidence gaps. The literature analysis contributed to identifying cross-cutting methodological and technical issues, which were considered by the expert panel to derive methodological research priorities. The panel suggests a research agenda for health economics which incorporates the use of real-world evidence in the assessment of new and existing interventions; increased understanding of cost-effectiveness according to patient characteristics beyond the "-omics" approach to inform both investment and disinvestment decisions; methods for assessment of complex interventions; improved cross-talk between economic evaluations from health and other sectors; early health technology assessment; and standardized, transferable approaches to economic modeling.
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S0266462317000666
dc.identifier.essn1471-6348
dc.identifier.pmid29081308
dc.identifier.unpaywallURLhttps://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/4610007/1/Priorities%20for%20Health%20Economic%20Methodological%20Research_GREEN%20AAM.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10668/24633
dc.issue.number6
dc.journal.titleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care
dc.journal.titleabbreviationInt J Technol Assess Health Care
dc.language.isoen
dc.organizationEscuela Andaluza de Salud Pública
dc.page.number609-619
dc.pubmedtypeJournal Article
dc.rights.accessRightsopen access
dc.subjectCost-effectiveness analysis
dc.subjectEconomic evaluation
dc.subjectExpert opinion
dc.subjectMethods
dc.subjectResearch agenda
dc.subject.meshCost-Benefit Analysis
dc.subject.meshDecision Making
dc.subject.meshDelivery of Health Care
dc.subject.meshEurope
dc.subject.meshHealth Priorities
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshResearch Design
dc.subject.meshTechnology Assessment, Biomedical
dc.titlePRIORITIES FOR HEALTH ECONOMIC METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH: RESULTS OF AN EXPERT CONSULTATION.
dc.typeresearch article
dc.type.hasVersionAM
dc.volume.number33

Files