Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Depressive disorders are associated with a high burden of disease. However, due to the burden posed by the disease on not only the sufferers, but also on their relatives, there is an ongoing debate about which costs to include and, hence, which perspective should be applied. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to examine whether the change between healthcare payer and societal perspective leads to different conclusions of cost-utility analyses in the case of depression.

          Methods

          A systematic literature search was conducted to identify economic evaluations of interventions in depression, launched on Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Registry of the Tufts University using a ten-year time horizon (2008–2018). In a two-stepped screening process, cost-utility studies were selected by means of specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, relevant findings was extracted and, if not fully stated, calculated by the authors of this work.

          Results

          Overall, 53 articles with 92 complete economic evaluations, reporting costs from healthcare payer/provider and societal perspective, were identified. More precisely, 22 estimations (24%) changed their results regarding the cost-effectiveness quadrant when the societal perspective was included. Furthermore, 5% of the ICURs resulted in cost-effectiveness regarding the chosen threshold (2% of them became dominant) when societal costs were included. However, another four estimations (4%) showed the opposite result: these interventions were no longer cost-effective after the inclusion of societal costs.

          Conclusions

          Summarising the disparities in results and applied methods, the results show that societal costs might alter the conclusions in cost-utility analyses. Hence, the relevance of the perspectives chosen should be taken into account when carrying out an economic evaluation. This systematic review demonstrates that the results of economic evaluations can be affected by different methods available for estimating non-healthcare costs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references82

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria.

          The aim of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) project is to develop a criteria list for assessment of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. The criteria list resulting from this CHEC project should be regarded as a minimum standard. The criteria list has been developed using a Delphi method. Three Delphi rounds were needed to reach consensus. Twenty-three international experts participated in the Delphi panel. The Delphi panel achieved consensus over a generic core set of items for the quality assessment of economic evaluations. Each item of the CHEC-list was formulated as a question that can be answered by yes or no. To standardize the interpretation of the list and facilitate its use, the project team also provided an operationalization of the criteria list items. There was consensus among a group of international experts regarding a core set of items that can be used to assess the quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. Using this checklist will make future systematic reviews of economic evaluations more transparent, informative, and comparable. Consequently, researchers and policy-makers might use these systematic reviews more easily. The CHEC-list can be downloaded freely from http://www.beoz.unimaas.nl/chec/.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

            Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Global patterns of workplace productivity for people with depression: absenteeism and presenteeism costs across eight diverse countries

              Purpose Depression is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Research suggests that by far, the greatest contributor to the overall economic impact of depression is loss in productivity; however, there is very little research on the costs of depression outside of Western high-income countries. Thus, this study examines the impact of depression on workplace productivity across eight diverse countries. Methods We estimated the extent and costs of depression-related absenteeism and presenteeism in the workplace across eight countries: Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa, and the USA. We also examined the individual, workplace, and societal factors associated with lower productivity. Results To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the impact of depression on workplace productivity across a diverse set of countries, in terms of both culture and GDP. Mean annual per person costs for absenteeism were lowest in South Korea at $181 and highest in Japan ($2674). Mean presenteeism costs per person were highest in the USA ($5524) and Brazil ($5788). Costs associated with presenteeism tended to be 5–10 times higher than those associated with absenteeism. Conclusions These findings suggest that the impact of depression in the workplace is considerable across all countries, both in absolute monetary terms and in relation to proportion of country GDP. Overall, depression is an issue deserving much greater attention, regardless of a country’s economic development, national income or culture.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                juliane.duevel@uni-bielefeld.de
                Journal
                Health Econ Rev
                Health Econ Rev
                Health Economics Review
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                2191-1991
                22 September 2020
                22 September 2020
                2020
                : 10
                : 32
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.7491.b, ISNI 0000 0001 0944 9128, AG 5 – Department of Health Economics and Health Care Management, , Bielefeld University, School of Public Health, ; Universitaetsstrasse 25, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany
                [2 ]GRID grid.8048.4, ISNI 0000 0001 2194 2329, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, Economic Analysis Department, Research Group in Economics and Health, , University of Castilla-La Mancha, ; Cobertizo San Pedro Mártir, S/N, 45002 Toledo, Spain
                [3 ]GRID grid.449750.b, ISNI 0000 0004 1769 4416, Faculty of Technology and Science, , University Camilo José Cela, ; Urb. Villafranca del Castillo, Calle Castillo de Alarcón, 49, 28692 Villanueva de la Cañada, Madrid, Spain
                [4 ]GRID grid.8048.4, ISNI 0000 0001 2194 2329, Faculty of Social Science, Economic Analysis and Finance Department, Research Group in Economics and Health, , University of Castilla-La Mancha, ; Avda. Real Fábrica s/n, Talavera de la Reina, 45600 Toledo, Spain
                [5 ]GRID grid.8048.4, ISNI 0000 0001 2194 2329, Faculty of Health Science, Research Group in Economics and Health, , University of Castilla-La Mancha, ; Av. Real Fábrica de Sedas, s/n, Talavera de la Reina, 45600 Toledo, Spain
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5700-4852
                Article
                288
                10.1186/s13561-020-00288-7
                7510122
                32964372
                3e5d87af-06e7-46b3-a04c-f3cf0dd62445
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 6 July 2020
                : 7 September 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010663, H2020 European Research Council;
                Award ID: 779312
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Economics of health & social care
                cost-utility analysis,cua,quality-adjusted life years,qaly,societal perspective,incremental cost-utility ratio,icur,direct costs,indirect costs,depression

                Comments

                Comment on this article