Uptake of health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials in Australia: an observational study.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Trials Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI:10.1186/s13063-024-08562-3
Alayna Carrandi, Cynthia Wells, Rachael L Morton, Richard Norman, Helen Skouteris, Amy Grove, Alisa M Higgins
{"title":"Uptake of health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials in Australia: an observational study.","authors":"Alayna Carrandi, Cynthia Wells, Rachael L Morton, Richard Norman, Helen Skouteris, Amy Grove, Alisa M Higgins","doi":"10.1186/s13063-024-08562-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Australia's clinical trials sector is highly productive with continued sector investment needed to enhance research impact. Generating economic evidence alongside trials has the potential to facilitate the implementation of trial results into practice. Ascertaining the use of health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials can assist in determining whether clinical trials fully realize and operationalize their potential to change policy and practice. The aims of this study were to ascertain the uptake of health economic evaluations alongside Australian-led clinical trials and explore associations between uptake and trial characteristics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This observational study comprised a descriptive analysis of clinical trials registries, a cross-sectional survey of Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA) networks, and a subgroup analysis of completed acute care trials. Descriptive analyses of trial registrations were conducted, with logistic regressions used to identify predictors of proposing and subsequently publishing a health economic evaluation alongside acute care trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Few randomized Australian-led clinical trials (11% of 9251) and ACTA network trials (43% of 227) proposed a health economic evaluation. In the subgroup analysis, 22% of the 324 acute care trials and 53% of the 38 ACTA network acute care trials proposed a health economic evaluation. Acute care trials funded by government bodies were significantly more likely to propose and publish a health economic evaluation than those funded by hospitals, universities, and other funders, after adjusting for phase, registration year, primary sponsor type, and comparator.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current uptake of health economic evaluations alongside Australian-led clinical trials is low, with uptake higher among the subset of ACTA network trials. This is despite economic evidence playing an increasingly prominent role in health system management, as well as rising health expenditure, limited budgets, and competing demands. There is significant opportunity to embed health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials, particularly phase 3 trials, to increase research outputs and optimize research translation. Investing in clinical trial networks that support funding for a health economist or a health economic evaluation may be an effective strategy to increase the uptake of health economic evaluations alongside trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"25 1","pages":"705"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11494774/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08562-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Australia's clinical trials sector is highly productive with continued sector investment needed to enhance research impact. Generating economic evidence alongside trials has the potential to facilitate the implementation of trial results into practice. Ascertaining the use of health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials can assist in determining whether clinical trials fully realize and operationalize their potential to change policy and practice. The aims of this study were to ascertain the uptake of health economic evaluations alongside Australian-led clinical trials and explore associations between uptake and trial characteristics.

Methods: This observational study comprised a descriptive analysis of clinical trials registries, a cross-sectional survey of Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA) networks, and a subgroup analysis of completed acute care trials. Descriptive analyses of trial registrations were conducted, with logistic regressions used to identify predictors of proposing and subsequently publishing a health economic evaluation alongside acute care trials.

Results: Few randomized Australian-led clinical trials (11% of 9251) and ACTA network trials (43% of 227) proposed a health economic evaluation. In the subgroup analysis, 22% of the 324 acute care trials and 53% of the 38 ACTA network acute care trials proposed a health economic evaluation. Acute care trials funded by government bodies were significantly more likely to propose and publish a health economic evaluation than those funded by hospitals, universities, and other funders, after adjusting for phase, registration year, primary sponsor type, and comparator.

Conclusions: Current uptake of health economic evaluations alongside Australian-led clinical trials is low, with uptake higher among the subset of ACTA network trials. This is despite economic evidence playing an increasingly prominent role in health system management, as well as rising health expenditure, limited budgets, and competing demands. There is significant opportunity to embed health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials, particularly phase 3 trials, to increase research outputs and optimize research translation. Investing in clinical trial networks that support funding for a health economist or a health economic evaluation may be an effective strategy to increase the uptake of health economic evaluations alongside trials.

澳大利亚在进行临床试验的同时采用卫生经济评估:一项观察性研究。
背景:澳大利亚的临床试验部门成果丰硕,但仍需继续投资以提高研究影响力。在开展试验的同时提供经济学证据有可能促进试验结果在实践中的应用。确定临床试验中卫生经济评估的使用情况有助于确定临床试验是否充分发挥了其改变政策和实践的潜力。本研究旨在确定澳大利亚主导的临床试验对卫生经济评估的使用情况,并探讨使用情况与试验特征之间的关联:这项观察性研究包括对临床试验登记的描述性分析、对澳大利亚临床试验联盟(ACTA)网络的横断面调查以及对已完成的急症护理试验的分组分析。我们对试验登记进行了描述性分析,并通过逻辑回归确定了提出并随后发布急症护理试验卫生经济评估的预测因素:很少有澳大利亚主导的随机临床试验(9251项试验中的11%)和ACTA网络试验(227项试验中的43%)提出健康经济评估。在分组分析中,324项急症护理试验中的22%和38项ACTA网络急症护理试验中的53%提出了卫生经济学评估。在对阶段、注册年份、主要赞助者类型和比较者进行调整后,由政府机构资助的急症护理试验提出并发表卫生经济学评价的可能性明显高于由医院、大学和其他资助者资助的试验:目前,在澳大利亚主导的临床试验中,卫生经济评估的采用率较低,而在ACTA网络试验子集中,采用率较高。尽管经济学证据在医疗系统管理中发挥着日益突出的作用,而且医疗支出不断增加、预算有限、各种需求相互竞争,但情况依然如此。将卫生经济评估与临床试验(尤其是 3 期试验)结合起来,以增加研究成果并优化研究成果转化,是大有可为的。对临床试验网络进行投资,为卫生经济学家或卫生经济评估提供资金支持,可能是在进行试验的同时增加卫生经济评估的有效策略。
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
Trials
Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
4.00%
发文量
966
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
×
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