43
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluación económica de intervenciones sanitarias en España durante el periodo 1983-2008 Translated title: Economic Evaluation of Healthcare Interventions during more than 25 years in Spain (1983-2008)

      review-article

      Read this article at

      SciELOPubMed
          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

          Fundamento: La evaluación económica se ha promulgado como una herramienta de ayuda en los procesos de toma de decisiones en la asignación de recursos y en la adopción de tecnologías sanitarias. El objetivo de este trabajo ha sido analizar la evolución y las principales características de los trabajos de evaluación económica de intervenciones sanitarias en España durante el período 1983-2008. Metodología: Estudio observacional descriptivo. Se ha realizado una revisión sistemática en bases de datos bibliográficas (PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Knowledge, CRD, IME, IBECS) y manualmente a través de Internet en revistas y organismos públicos. Se definieron criterios de inclusión y exclusión, y un conjunto de variables para analizar las características de los artículos seleccionados. Resultados: 477 trabajos cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. Las características más frecuentes fueron: análisis coste-efectividad (62,5%), análisis de decisiones (34,0%), perspectiva del sistema sanitario (42,1%), intervenciones terapéuticas (70,0%) y financiación no explícita (44,0%). La distribución geográfica por Comunidades Autónomas de los primeros autores fue: Cataluña (29,3%), Comunidad de Madrid (23,7%), Andalucía (6,7%) y Comunidad Valenciana (6,3%). El 50,9% de los autores principales trabajaban en centros hospitalarios o de atención especializada. Las intervenciones se dirigían principalmente a enfermedades cardiovasculares (15,7%), enfermedades infecciosas y parasitarias (15,3%) y tumores malignos (13,2%). El 82,2% de los trabajos hacía recomendaciones orientadas a la toma de decisiones. Conclusiones: En el período analizado se observó una evolución creciente del número estudios. Los trabajos identificados son heterógeneos en la calidad de la información reportada respecto a los métodos de análisis, las fuentes de datos, el tipo de intervención, o la causa de enfermedad estudiada. Parece necesario hacer más esfuerzos por mejorar la cantidad y calidad de trabajos en intervenciones de salud pública.

          Translated abstract

          Background: Economic evaluation has been promoted as a tool to guide decision-making processes regarding healthcare resources' allocation and in the adoption of healthcare technologies. We analyzed the evolution and the main characteristics of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions done during the period 1983-2008 in Spain. Methods: Observational descriptive study. We performed a systematic review in the main bibliographic databases (PubMed/ MEDLINE, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Knowledge, CRD, IME, IBECS) and manually through Internet in journals and public reports. There were predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a set of variables to analyze the characteristics of the selected reports. Results: In total, 477 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Some of the studies characteristics were: cost-effectiveness analysis (62.5%), decision analysis techniques (34.0%), healthcare system perspective (42.1%), therapeutic interventions (70.0%) and non explicit financing (44.0%). The geographical distribution for Spanish regions of the first authors was: Catalonia (29.3%), Community of Madrid (23.7%), Andalusia (6,7%) and Region of Valencia (6,3%). A total of 50.9% of the principal authors were employed at hospital centers. The most common disease conditions were: cardiovascular diseases (15.7%), infectious and parasitic diseases (15.3%) and malignant neoplasms (13.2%). A total of 82.2 % of the reports provided recommendations for decision making. Conclusions: An increasing number of studies was observed. Identified reports combined heterogeneity in the quality of the information brought with regard to analysis methods, data sources, type of interventions, or disease conditions. It is suggested to do more efforts for improving the quantity and quality of reports in public health interventions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

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

          Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review.

          To investigate if published studies tend to report favourable cost effectiveness ratios (below 20,000 dollars, 50,000 dollars, and 100,000 dollars per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained) and evaluate study characteristics associated with this phenomenon. Systematic review. Studies reviewed 494 English language studies measuring health effects in QALYs published up to December 2001 identified using Medline, HealthSTAR, CancerLit, Current Content, and EconLit databases. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios measured in dollars set to the year of publication. Approximately half the reported incremental cost effectiveness ratios (712 of 1433) were below 20,000 dollars/QALY. Studies funded by industry were more likely to report cost effectiveness ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY (adjusted odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 3.3), 50,000 dollars/QALY (3.2, 1.8 to 5.7), and 100,000 dollars/QALY (3.3, 1.6 to 6.8). Studies of higher methodological quality (adjusted odds ratio 0.58, 0.37 to 0.91) and those conducted in Europe (0.59, 0.33 to 1.1) and the United States (0.44, 0.26 to 0.76) rather than elsewhere were less likely to report ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY. Most published analyses report favourable incremental cost effectiveness ratios. Studies funded by industry were more likely to report ratios below the three thresholds. Studies of higher methodological quality and those conducted in Europe and the US rather than elsewhere were less likely to report ratios below 20,000 dollars/QALY.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada.

            National public insurance for drugs is often based on evidence of comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. This study describes how that evidence has been used across 3 jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, and Britain) that have been at the forefront of evidence-based coverage internationally. To describe how clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence is used in coverage decisions both within and across jurisdictions and to identify common issues in the process of evidence-based coverage. Descriptive analysis of retrospective data from the Common Drug Review (CDR) of Canada, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in Britain, and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) of Australia. All publicly available information as of December 31, 2008, was gathered from each committee's Web site (data set begins in January 2004 [CDR], February 2001 [NICE], and July 2005 [PBAC]). Listing recommendations for each drug by disease indication. NICE recommended 87.4% (174/199) of submissions for listing compared with a listing rate of 49.6% (60/121) and 54.3% (153/282) for the CDR and PBAC, respectively. Significant uncertainty around clinical effectiveness, typically resulting from inadequate study design or the use of inappropriate comparators and unvalidated surrogate end points, was identified as a key issue in coverage decisions. Recommendations varied considerably across countries, possibly because of differences in the medications reviewed; different agency processes, including the willingness to negotiate on price; and the approach to "me too" drugs. The data suggest that the 3 agencies make recommendations that are consistent with evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness but that other factors are often important. NICE, PBAC, and CDR face common issues with respect to the quality and strength of the experimental evidence in support of a clinically meaningful effect. However, comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, along with other relevant factors, can be used by national agencies to support drug decision making. The results of the evaluation process in different countries are influenced by the context, agency processes, ability to engage in price negotiation, and perhaps differences in social values.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Ley 16/2003, de 28 de mayo, de cohesión y calidad del Sistema Nacional de Salud

              (2003)

                Author and article information

                Journal
                resp
                Revista Española de Salud Pública
                Rev. Esp. Salud Publica
                Ministerio de Sanidad, Consumo y Bienestar social (Madrid, Madrid, Spain )
                1135-5727
                2173-9110
                August 2010
                : 84
                : 4
                : 353-369
                Affiliations
                [01] Madrid orgnameMinisterio de Sanidad y Política Social orgdiv1Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios orgdiv2División de Farmacoepidemiología y Farmacovigilancia Spain
                [02] Valencia orgnameFundación Instituto de Investigación en Servicios de Salud
                Article
                S1135-57272010000400002 S1135-5727(10)08400400002
                10.1590/s1135-57272010000400002
                21141264
                feacfd2b-eec9-4219-ba6f-b959301cf20c

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 International License.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 20, Pages: 17
                Product

                SciELO Public Health

                Categories
                Revisión Bibliográfica

                Evaluación económica,Coste-efectividad,Revisión sistemática,España,Economic evaluation,Cost-effectiveness analysis,Systematic review,Spain

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log
                scite_

                Similar content99

                Cited by12

                Most referenced authors117