卫生经济评价中的公平考虑:对世卫组织东南亚区域国家的系统审查。

Q2 Medicine
Parthibane Sivanantham, Jeyanthi Anandraj, Vanessa Ravel, Naveen Kumar Veerasetty, Vanjavakam Sahithya, Sitanshu Sekhar Kar
{"title":"卫生经济评价中的公平考虑:对世卫组织东南亚区域国家的系统审查。","authors":"Parthibane Sivanantham, Jeyanthi Anandraj, Vanessa Ravel, Naveen Kumar Veerasetty, Vanjavakam Sahithya, Sitanshu Sekhar Kar","doi":"10.4103/WHO-SEAJPH.WHO-SEAJPH_82_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Equity-informative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEAs) can promote fair healthcare access, yet their use in the WHO South-East Asia region (SEARO) is not well understood. This study aims to summarize methodological approaches, equity-relevant groups, health inequality measures, and healthcare provision areas addressed in equity-informative CEAs in SEARO countries. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts CEA registry for equity-informative CEAs from WHO SEARO countries (2014-2023). CEAs with at least two alternative interventions and one equity criterion were included. Data extraction used Microsoft Excel. Interventions' distributional effects on cost-effectiveness were evaluated qualitatively, and bias was assessed using the CHEERS checklist. Of 828 studies identified, 10 were selected, nine from India (90%) and eight between 2014-2017 8 (80%). Studied groups included children, patients, the general population, adolescent girls, and neonates. All studies used cost-effectiveness analysis; 8 (80%) focused on healthcare providers' perspectives. Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) were primary outcome measures in 8 (80%) studies, while 9 (90%) assessed financial risk protection via out-of-pocket expenditure averted. Wealth quintiles were the equity criterion in 9 (90%) studies. About 6 (60%) conducted subgroup analyses and Extended Cost-Effectiveness Analyses (ECEA), with 2 (20%) using the Gini coefficient. Most studies 9 (90%) demonstrated 'greater value,' indicating improved public health implications. The scarcity of equity-informed CEAs in SEARO countries, excluding India, underscores the need for broader adoption. Improved public health implications highlight the necessity of equity-informed CEAs. Addressing these issues is essential to advance health equity in the SEARO region.</p>","PeriodicalId":37393,"journal":{"name":"WHO South-East Asia journal of public health","volume":"13 2","pages":"69-77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Equity Considerations in Health Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review of WHO South-East Asia Region Countries.\",\"authors\":\"Parthibane Sivanantham, Jeyanthi Anandraj, Vanessa Ravel, Naveen Kumar Veerasetty, Vanjavakam Sahithya, Sitanshu Sekhar Kar\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/WHO-SEAJPH.WHO-SEAJPH_82_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Equity-informative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEAs) can promote fair healthcare access, yet their use in the WHO South-East Asia region (SEARO) is not well understood. This study aims to summarize methodological approaches, equity-relevant groups, health inequality measures, and healthcare provision areas addressed in equity-informative CEAs in SEARO countries. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts CEA registry for equity-informative CEAs from WHO SEARO countries (2014-2023). CEAs with at least two alternative interventions and one equity criterion were included. Data extraction used Microsoft Excel. Interventions' distributional effects on cost-effectiveness were evaluated qualitatively, and bias was assessed using the CHEERS checklist. Of 828 studies identified, 10 were selected, nine from India (90%) and eight between 2014-2017 8 (80%). Studied groups included children, patients, the general population, adolescent girls, and neonates. All studies used cost-effectiveness analysis; 8 (80%) focused on healthcare providers' perspectives. Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) were primary outcome measures in 8 (80%) studies, while 9 (90%) assessed financial risk protection via out-of-pocket expenditure averted. Wealth quintiles were the equity criterion in 9 (90%) studies. About 6 (60%) conducted subgroup analyses and Extended Cost-Effectiveness Analyses (ECEA), with 2 (20%) using the Gini coefficient. Most studies 9 (90%) demonstrated 'greater value,' indicating improved public health implications. The scarcity of equity-informed CEAs in SEARO countries, excluding India, underscores the need for broader adoption. Improved public health implications highlight the necessity of equity-informed CEAs. Addressing these issues is essential to advance health equity in the SEARO region.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37393,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"WHO South-East Asia journal of public health\",\"volume\":\"13 2\",\"pages\":\"69-77\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"WHO South-East Asia journal of public health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/WHO-SEAJPH.WHO-SEAJPH_82_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WHO South-East Asia journal of public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/WHO-SEAJPH.WHO-SEAJPH_82_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:公平信息成本效益分析(CEAs)可以促进公平的医疗保健获取,但其在世卫组织东南亚地区(SEARO)的使用情况尚不清楚。本研究旨在总结方法方法、公平相关群体、健康不平等措施和医疗保健提供领域,这些领域在SEARO国家的公平信息cea中得到解决。在PubMed、Embase、Scopus和Tufts CEA登记处进行了系统检索,以获取来自WHO SEARO国家(2014-2023)的股权信息CEA。包括至少有两种替代干预措施和一种公平标准的cea。数据提取使用Microsoft Excel。对干预措施对成本效益的分配效应进行定性评估,并使用CHEERS检查表评估偏倚。在确定的828项研究中,选择了10项,其中9项来自印度(90%),8项来自2014-2017年(80%)。研究对象包括儿童、病人、普通人群、少女和新生儿。所有研究均采用成本效益分析;8(80%)关注医疗保健提供者的观点。残疾调整生命年(DALYs)是8项(80%)研究的主要结局指标,而9项(90%)研究通过避免自付支出来评估财务风险保护。在9项(90%)研究中,财富五分位数是公平标准。约6家(60%)进行了亚组分析和扩展成本-效果分析(ECEA), 2家(20%)使用了基尼系数。大多数研究9(90%)显示出“更大的价值”,表明改善了公共卫生影响。在除印度以外的东南亚国家,缺乏对股权知情的cea,这凸显了更广泛采用的必要性。改善对公共卫生的影响突出了知情公平的环境评估的必要性。解决这些问题对于促进东南亚地区的卫生公平至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Equity Considerations in Health Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review of WHO South-East Asia Region Countries.

Abstract: Equity-informative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEAs) can promote fair healthcare access, yet their use in the WHO South-East Asia region (SEARO) is not well understood. This study aims to summarize methodological approaches, equity-relevant groups, health inequality measures, and healthcare provision areas addressed in equity-informative CEAs in SEARO countries. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Tufts CEA registry for equity-informative CEAs from WHO SEARO countries (2014-2023). CEAs with at least two alternative interventions and one equity criterion were included. Data extraction used Microsoft Excel. Interventions' distributional effects on cost-effectiveness were evaluated qualitatively, and bias was assessed using the CHEERS checklist. Of 828 studies identified, 10 were selected, nine from India (90%) and eight between 2014-2017 8 (80%). Studied groups included children, patients, the general population, adolescent girls, and neonates. All studies used cost-effectiveness analysis; 8 (80%) focused on healthcare providers' perspectives. Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) were primary outcome measures in 8 (80%) studies, while 9 (90%) assessed financial risk protection via out-of-pocket expenditure averted. Wealth quintiles were the equity criterion in 9 (90%) studies. About 6 (60%) conducted subgroup analyses and Extended Cost-Effectiveness Analyses (ECEA), with 2 (20%) using the Gini coefficient. Most studies 9 (90%) demonstrated 'greater value,' indicating improved public health implications. The scarcity of equity-informed CEAs in SEARO countries, excluding India, underscores the need for broader adoption. Improved public health implications highlight the necessity of equity-informed CEAs. Addressing these issues is essential to advance health equity in the SEARO region.

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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The journal will cover technical and clinical studies related to health, ethical and social issues in field of Public Health, Epidemiology, primary health care, epidemiology, health administration, health systems, health economics, health promotion, public health nutrition, communicable and non-communicable diseases, maternal and child health, occupational and environmental health, social and preventive medicine. Articles with clinical interest and implications will be given preference.
×
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