成本效益分析中的健康公平考虑因素:从总体审查中获得的启示》。

IF 2.1 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2024-08-20 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CEOR.S471827
Jeffrey M Muir, Amruta Radhakrishnan, Ipek Ozer Stillman, Grammati Sarri
{"title":"成本效益分析中的健康公平考虑因素:从总体审查中获得的启示》。","authors":"Jeffrey M Muir, Amruta Radhakrishnan, Ipek Ozer Stillman, Grammati Sarri","doi":"10.2147/CEOR.S471827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are important in healthcare decision-making and resource allocation; however, expanding the scope of CEAs beyond the traditional clinicoeconomic concepts to also include value elements such as health equity has attracted much interest in recent years. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize evidence on how equity concepts have been considered in modified types of CEAs. Publicly available articles in MEDLINE were searched on January 25, 2024, to identify systematic reviews (SLRs) published in English since 2013 that incorporate health equity considerations in CEAs. Title/abstract, full-text article screening and data extraction were conducted by a single reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Results were qualitatively synthesized to identify common themes. Eight SLRs were included. Distributional CEAs (DCEA), equity-based weighting, extended CEA (ECEA), mathematical programming and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) were the most discussed approaches. A lack of consensus on the best approach for incorporating health equity into CEAs was highlighted, as these approaches are not currently consistently used in decision-making. Important limitations included scarcity of robust data to inform health equity indices, bias associated with commonly used health outcome metrics and the challenge of accounting for additional contextual factors such as fairness and opportunity costs. Proposals to expand CEAs to address equity issues come with challenges due to data unavailability, methods complexity, and decision-makers unfamiliarity with these approaches. Our review indicates that extended and distributional CEAs can support decision-making by capturing the impact of inequity on the clinical and cost-effectiveness assessment of treatments, although future modeling should account for additional contextual factors such as fairness and opportunity costs. Recommendations for actions moving forward include standardization of data collection for outcomes related to equity and familiarity with methodologies to account for the complexities of integrating health equity considerations in CEAs.</p>","PeriodicalId":47313,"journal":{"name":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11344546/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health Equity Considerations in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Insights from an Umbrella Review.\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey M Muir, Amruta Radhakrishnan, Ipek Ozer Stillman, Grammati Sarri\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/CEOR.S471827\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are important in healthcare decision-making and resource allocation; however, expanding the scope of CEAs beyond the traditional clinicoeconomic concepts to also include value elements such as health equity has attracted much interest in recent years. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize evidence on how equity concepts have been considered in modified types of CEAs. Publicly available articles in MEDLINE were searched on January 25, 2024, to identify systematic reviews (SLRs) published in English since 2013 that incorporate health equity considerations in CEAs. Title/abstract, full-text article screening and data extraction were conducted by a single reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Results were qualitatively synthesized to identify common themes. Eight SLRs were included. Distributional CEAs (DCEA), equity-based weighting, extended CEA (ECEA), mathematical programming and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) were the most discussed approaches. A lack of consensus on the best approach for incorporating health equity into CEAs was highlighted, as these approaches are not currently consistently used in decision-making. Important limitations included scarcity of robust data to inform health equity indices, bias associated with commonly used health outcome metrics and the challenge of accounting for additional contextual factors such as fairness and opportunity costs. Proposals to expand CEAs to address equity issues come with challenges due to data unavailability, methods complexity, and decision-makers unfamiliarity with these approaches. Our review indicates that extended and distributional CEAs can support decision-making by capturing the impact of inequity on the clinical and cost-effectiveness assessment of treatments, although future modeling should account for additional contextual factors such as fairness and opportunity costs. Recommendations for actions moving forward include standardization of data collection for outcomes related to equity and familiarity with methodologies to account for the complexities of integrating health equity considerations in CEAs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11344546/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S471827\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S471827","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

成本效益分析(CEA)在医疗决策和资源分配中非常重要;然而,近年来,将 CEA 的范围从传统的临床经济学概念扩展到包括健康公平等价值要素的做法引起了广泛关注。本综述旨在综合有关在修改后的 CEA 中如何考虑公平概念的证据。在 2024 年 1 月 25 日对 MEDLINE 中公开发表的文章进行了检索,以确定自 2013 年以来发表的将健康公平因素纳入 CEA 的英文系统综述 (SLR)。标题/摘要、全文筛选和数据提取由一名审稿人完成,并由第二名审稿人验证。对结果进行定性综合,以确定共同的主题。共纳入了八份 SLR。分布式 CEA (DCEA)、基于公平的加权、扩展 CEA (ECEA)、数学编程和多标准决策分析 (MCDA) 是讨论最多的方法。与会者强调,由于目前在决策过程中并未持续使用这些方法,因此对于将健康公平纳入 CEA 的最佳方法缺乏共识。重要的局限性包括缺乏可靠的数据为健康公平指数提供信息、与常用健康结果指标相关的偏差以及考虑公平性和机会成本等其他背景因素的挑战。由于数据缺乏、方法复杂以及决策者不熟悉这些方法,扩大 CEA 以解决公平问题的建议面临挑战。我们的综述表明,扩展和分布式 CEA 可以通过捕捉不平等对治疗的临床和成本效益评估的影响来支持决策,尽管未来的建模应考虑更多的背景因素,如公平性和机会成本。对未来行动的建议包括:对与公平相关的结果进行标准化数据收集,并熟悉各种方法,以考虑将健康公平因素纳入 CEA 的复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Health Equity Considerations in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Insights from an Umbrella Review.

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are important in healthcare decision-making and resource allocation; however, expanding the scope of CEAs beyond the traditional clinicoeconomic concepts to also include value elements such as health equity has attracted much interest in recent years. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize evidence on how equity concepts have been considered in modified types of CEAs. Publicly available articles in MEDLINE were searched on January 25, 2024, to identify systematic reviews (SLRs) published in English since 2013 that incorporate health equity considerations in CEAs. Title/abstract, full-text article screening and data extraction were conducted by a single reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. Results were qualitatively synthesized to identify common themes. Eight SLRs were included. Distributional CEAs (DCEA), equity-based weighting, extended CEA (ECEA), mathematical programming and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) were the most discussed approaches. A lack of consensus on the best approach for incorporating health equity into CEAs was highlighted, as these approaches are not currently consistently used in decision-making. Important limitations included scarcity of robust data to inform health equity indices, bias associated with commonly used health outcome metrics and the challenge of accounting for additional contextual factors such as fairness and opportunity costs. Proposals to expand CEAs to address equity issues come with challenges due to data unavailability, methods complexity, and decision-makers unfamiliarity with these approaches. Our review indicates that extended and distributional CEAs can support decision-making by capturing the impact of inequity on the clinical and cost-effectiveness assessment of treatments, although future modeling should account for additional contextual factors such as fairness and opportunity costs. Recommendations for actions moving forward include standardization of data collection for outcomes related to equity and familiarity with methodologies to account for the complexities of integrating health equity considerations in CEAs.

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
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
83
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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