Assessing the Health and Welfare Benefits of Interventions Using the Wider Societal Impacts Framework.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Shainur Premji, Susan Griffin
{"title":"Assessing the Health and Welfare Benefits of Interventions Using the Wider Societal Impacts Framework.","authors":"Shainur Premji, Susan Griffin","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.07.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Health technology assessment bodies advocate capturing the value of interventions in terms of their benefits to health and broader welfare. The wider societal impacts (WSI) framework considers how changes in health alter a person's net contribution to society-that is, what they produce minus what they consume. In this research, we review this framework and explore the scope to differentiate WSI by equity-relevant sociodemographic characteristics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This research updates previous calculations using publicly available data from population-based surveys in the United Kingdom. We then estimate for 199 chronic conditions: (1) WSI for the average person with the condition and (2) gain in WSI for an improvement of 0.1 in health-related quality of life score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The nature and availability of information varied across population-based surveys and precluded analyses to examine WSI by population subgroup. Our updated estimates mirrored earlier findings that consideration of the broader societal impacts of health would reprioritize interventions compared with assessment on health alone. For example, for the same improvement in health, a woman experiencing diseases of the circulatory system has the highest potential gain in WSI (£354/month) whereas a man experiencing HIV has the lowest potential gain (£233/month).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The WSI framework provides a simple, indirect method to inform resource allocation decisions. Understanding the equity implications of this approach was hindered by differences in the information collected across population-based surveys. Findings demonstrate the potential reprioritization that may occur if the broader welfare benefits of health interventions were used to inform coverage decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.07.014","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Health technology assessment bodies advocate capturing the value of interventions in terms of their benefits to health and broader welfare. The wider societal impacts (WSI) framework considers how changes in health alter a person's net contribution to society-that is, what they produce minus what they consume. In this research, we review this framework and explore the scope to differentiate WSI by equity-relevant sociodemographic characteristics.

Methods: This research updates previous calculations using publicly available data from population-based surveys in the United Kingdom. We then estimate for 199 chronic conditions: (1) WSI for the average person with the condition and (2) gain in WSI for an improvement of 0.1 in health-related quality of life score.

Results: The nature and availability of information varied across population-based surveys and precluded analyses to examine WSI by population subgroup. Our updated estimates mirrored earlier findings that consideration of the broader societal impacts of health would reprioritize interventions compared with assessment on health alone. For example, for the same improvement in health, a woman experiencing diseases of the circulatory system has the highest potential gain in WSI (£354/month) whereas a man experiencing HIV has the lowest potential gain (£233/month).

Conclusions: The WSI framework provides a simple, indirect method to inform resource allocation decisions. Understanding the equity implications of this approach was hindered by differences in the information collected across population-based surveys. Findings demonstrate the potential reprioritization that may occur if the broader welfare benefits of health interventions were used to inform coverage decisions.

利用更广泛的社会影响框架评估干预措施的健康和福利效益。
目标:卫生技术评估机构主张根据干预措施对健康和更广泛福利的益处来衡量其价值。更广泛的社会影响(WSI)框架考虑的是健康的变化如何改变一个人对社会的净贡献--即他们的生产量减去他们的消费量。在本研究中,我们回顾了这一框架,并探讨了根据与公平相关的社会人口特征来区分 WSI 的范围:本研究利用英国人口调查的公开数据更新了之前的计算结果。然后,我们对 199 种慢性疾病进行了估算:(i) 普通患者的 WSI;(ii) 健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)每提高 0.1 分所获得的 WSI:不同人群调查的信息性质和可用性各不相同,因此无法按人群分组对 WSI 进行分析。我们的最新估计结果与之前的研究结果一致,即与仅评估健康状况相比,考虑健康对社会的广泛影响将重新确定干预措施的优先次序。例如,在健康状况得到相同改善的情况下,患有循环系统疾病的女性的 WSI 潜在收益最高(354 英镑/月),而患有艾滋病的男性的潜在收益最低(233 英镑/月):WSI 框架为资源分配决策提供了一种简单、间接的方法。由于基于人口的调查所收集的信息存在差异,因此无法了解这种方法对公平的影响。研究结果表明,如果利用健康干预措施的更广泛福利效益来为覆盖决策提供信息,就有可能重新确定优先次序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信