评估全球成本效益证据,为制定巴基斯坦基本保健服务一揽子计划提供依据

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
M. Huda, N. Kitson, N. Saadi, Saira Kanwal, Urooj Gul, Maarten Jansen, S. Torres-Rueda, Rob Baltussen, A. Alwan, S. Siddiqi, Anna Vassall
{"title":"评估全球成本效益证据,为制定巴基斯坦基本保健服务一揽子计划提供依据","authors":"M. Huda, N. Kitson, N. Saadi, Saira Kanwal, Urooj Gul, Maarten Jansen, S. Torres-Rueda, Rob Baltussen, A. Alwan, S. Siddiqi, Anna Vassall","doi":"10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Countries designing a health benefit package (HBP) to support progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) require robust cost-effectiveness evidence. This paper reports on Pakistan’s approach to assessing the applicability of global cost-effectiveness evidence to country context as part of a HBP design process. Methods: A seven-step process was developed and implemented with Disease Control Priority 3 (DCP3) project partners to assess the applicability of global incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) to Pakistan. First, the scope of the interventions to be assessed was defined and an independent, interdisciplinary team was formed. Second, the team familiarized itself with intervention descriptions. Third, the team identified studies from the Tufts Medical School Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) registry. Fourth, the team applied specific knock-out criteria to match identified studies to local intervention descriptions. Matches were then cross-checked across reviewers and further selection was made where there were multiple ICER matches. Sixth, a quality scoring system was applied to ICER values. Finally, a database was created containing all the ICER results with a justification for each decision, which was made available to decision-makers during HBP deliberation. Results: We found that less than 50% of the interventions in DCP3 could be supported with evidence of cost-effectiveness applicable to the country context. Out of 78 ICERs identified as applicable to Pakistan from the Tufts GH-CEA registry, only 20 ICERs were exact matches of the DCP3 Pakistan intervention descriptions and 58 were partial matches. Conclusion: This paper presents the first attempt globally to use the main public GH-CEA database to estimate cost-effectiveness in the context of HBPs at a country level. This approach is a useful learning for all countries trying to develop essential packages informed by the global database on ICERs, and it will support the design of future evidence and further development of methods.","PeriodicalId":14135,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Global Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness to Inform Development of Pakistan’s Essential Package of Health Services\",\"authors\":\"M. Huda, N. Kitson, N. Saadi, Saira Kanwal, Urooj Gul, Maarten Jansen, S. Torres-Rueda, Rob Baltussen, A. Alwan, S. Siddiqi, Anna Vassall\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Countries designing a health benefit package (HBP) to support progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) require robust cost-effectiveness evidence. This paper reports on Pakistan’s approach to assessing the applicability of global cost-effectiveness evidence to country context as part of a HBP design process. Methods: A seven-step process was developed and implemented with Disease Control Priority 3 (DCP3) project partners to assess the applicability of global incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) to Pakistan. First, the scope of the interventions to be assessed was defined and an independent, interdisciplinary team was formed. Second, the team familiarized itself with intervention descriptions. Third, the team identified studies from the Tufts Medical School Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) registry. Fourth, the team applied specific knock-out criteria to match identified studies to local intervention descriptions. Matches were then cross-checked across reviewers and further selection was made where there were multiple ICER matches. Sixth, a quality scoring system was applied to ICER values. Finally, a database was created containing all the ICER results with a justification for each decision, which was made available to decision-makers during HBP deliberation. Results: We found that less than 50% of the interventions in DCP3 could be supported with evidence of cost-effectiveness applicable to the country context. Out of 78 ICERs identified as applicable to Pakistan from the Tufts GH-CEA registry, only 20 ICERs were exact matches of the DCP3 Pakistan intervention descriptions and 58 were partial matches. Conclusion: This paper presents the first attempt globally to use the main public GH-CEA database to estimate cost-effectiveness in the context of HBPs at a country level. This approach is a useful learning for all countries trying to develop essential packages informed by the global database on ICERs, and it will support the design of future evidence and further development of methods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Health Policy and Management\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Health Policy and Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8005\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Policy and Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:设计一揽子医疗福利计划(HBP)以支持实现全民医保(UHC)的国家需要强有力的成本效益证据。本文报告了巴基斯坦评估全球成本效益证据对该国国情的适用性的方法,作为一揽子保健计划设计过程的一部分。方法:与疾病控制优先事项 3 (DCP3) 项目合作伙伴一起制定并实施了一个七步流程,以评估全球增量成本效益比 (ICER) 对巴基斯坦的适用性。首先,确定了需要评估的干预措施的范围,并成立了一个独立的跨学科小组。其次,团队熟悉了干预措施的说明。第三,团队从塔夫茨医学院全球健康成本效益分析 (GHCEA) 登记册中确定了相关研究。第四,团队采用特定的淘汰标准,将确定的研究与当地的干预说明进行匹配。然后,各审稿人对匹配结果进行交叉检查,并在有多个 ICER 匹配结果的情况下进行进一步筛选。第六,对 ICER 值采用质量评分系统。最后,创建了一个数据库,其中包含所有 ICER 结果及每项决定的理由,供决策者在审议 HBP 时使用。结果:我们发现,在 DCP3 的干预措施中,只有不到 50%的干预措施有适用于该国国情的成本效益证据。在塔夫茨 GH-CEA 注册表中确定适用于巴基斯坦的 78 个 ICER 中,只有 20 个 ICER 与 DCP3 巴基斯坦干预措施说明完全匹配,58 个部分匹配。结论:本文在全球范围内首次尝试使用主要的公共 GH-CEA 数据库来估算 HBPs 在国家层面上的成本效益。这种方法对所有试图根据全球 ICER 数据库制定基本一揽子方案的国家来说都是有益的学习,它将支持未来证据的设计和方法的进一步发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing Global Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness to Inform Development of Pakistan’s Essential Package of Health Services
Background: Countries designing a health benefit package (HBP) to support progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) require robust cost-effectiveness evidence. This paper reports on Pakistan’s approach to assessing the applicability of global cost-effectiveness evidence to country context as part of a HBP design process. Methods: A seven-step process was developed and implemented with Disease Control Priority 3 (DCP3) project partners to assess the applicability of global incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) to Pakistan. First, the scope of the interventions to be assessed was defined and an independent, interdisciplinary team was formed. Second, the team familiarized itself with intervention descriptions. Third, the team identified studies from the Tufts Medical School Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) registry. Fourth, the team applied specific knock-out criteria to match identified studies to local intervention descriptions. Matches were then cross-checked across reviewers and further selection was made where there were multiple ICER matches. Sixth, a quality scoring system was applied to ICER values. Finally, a database was created containing all the ICER results with a justification for each decision, which was made available to decision-makers during HBP deliberation. Results: We found that less than 50% of the interventions in DCP3 could be supported with evidence of cost-effectiveness applicable to the country context. Out of 78 ICERs identified as applicable to Pakistan from the Tufts GH-CEA registry, only 20 ICERs were exact matches of the DCP3 Pakistan intervention descriptions and 58 were partial matches. Conclusion: This paper presents the first attempt globally to use the main public GH-CEA database to estimate cost-effectiveness in the context of HBPs at a country level. This approach is a useful learning for all countries trying to develop essential packages informed by the global database on ICERs, and it will support the design of future evidence and further development of methods.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
International Journal of Health Policy and Management Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
142
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM) is a monthly open access, peer-reviewed journal which serves as an international and interdisciplinary setting for the dissemination of health policy and management research. It brings together individual specialties from different fields, notably health management/policy/economics, epidemiology, social/public policy, and philosophy into a dynamic academic mix.
×
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