A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Methodologies Between Resource-Limited and Resource-Rich Countries: A Case of Rotavirus Vaccines
- 288 Downloads
For more than three decades, the number and influence of economic evaluations of healthcare interventions have been increasing and gaining attention from a policy level. However, concerns about the credibility of these studies exist, particularly in studies from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). This analysis was performed to explore economic evaluations conducted in LMICs in terms of methodological variations, quality of reporting and evidence used for the analyses. These results were compared with those studies conducted in high-income countries (HICs).
Rotavirus vaccine was selected as a case study, as it is one of the interventions that many studies in both settings have explored. The search to identify individual studies on rotavirus vaccines was performed in March 2014 using MEDLINE and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. Only full economic evaluations, comparing cost and outcomes of at least two alternatives, were included for review. Selected criteria were applied to assess methodological variation, quality of reporting and quality of evidence used.
Eighty-five studies were included, consisting of 45 studies in HICs and 40 studies in LMICs. Seventy-five percent of the studies in LMICs were published by researchers from HICs. Compared with studies in HICs, the LMIC studies showed less methodological variety. In terms of the quality of reporting, LMICs had a high adherence to technical criteria, but HICs ultimately proved to be better. The same trend applied for the quality of evidence used.
Although the quality of economic evaluations in LMICs was not as high as those from HICs, it is of an acceptable level given several limitations that exist in these settings. However, the results of this study may not reflect the fact that LMICs have developed a better research capacity in the domain of health economics, given that most of the studies were in theory led by researchers from HICs. Putting more effort into fostering the development of both research infrastructure and capacity building as well as encouraging local engagement in LMICs is thus necessary.
KeywordsEconomic Evaluation Economic Evaluation Study RotaRix Full Economic Evaluation Electronic Supplementary Material Appendix
The Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP) is funded by the Thailand Research Fund under the Senior Research Scholar on Health Technology Assessment (RTA5580010), the National Health Security Office, the Thai Health Promotion Foundation, the Health System Research Institute, and the Bureau of Health Policy and Strategy, Ministry of Public Health. HITAP international activities, including academic journal publications, are also supported by the Thaihealth-Global Link Initiative Project. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.
Study concept and design: YT, KT, BS, VC and WR. Acquisition of data: BS, VC, WR, YT and KT. Analysis and interpretation of data: KT, BS, VC and YT. Drafting of the manuscript: KT, BS, VC and YT. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: VC, BS and YT. Final approval of the version to be published: KT, BS, VC, WR and YT.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest and financial interests.
- 1.Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
- 4.Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care. 2005;43(7 Suppl.):II-5–14.Google Scholar
- 10.Jefferson T, Demicheli V. Quality of economic evaluations in health care: it is time for action to ensure higher methodological quality. 2002;324:313–4.Google Scholar
- 11.Tate JE, Burton AH, Boschi-Pinto C, et al. 2008 estimate of worldwide rotavirus-associated mortality in children younger than 5 years before the introduction of universal rotavirus vaccination programmes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12(2):136–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.The Program for Appropriate Technology in Health. Complete country rotavirus introduction list 2016 [cited May 2016]. http://sites.path.org/rotavirusvaccine/country-introduction-maps-and-spreadsheet/. Accessed 20 July 2016.
- 19.The World Bank. How we classify countries [cited April 20 2013]. http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications. Accessed 20 July 2016.
- 29.Tan-Torres Edejer T, Baltussen R, Adam T, Hutubessy R, et al. Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost effectiveness analysis. Geneva: WHO; 2003.Google Scholar
- 32.Claxton K, Revill P, Sculpher M, et al. The Gates reference case for economic evaluation. Seattle: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; 2014.Google Scholar
- 33.Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(36):iii–iv, ix–xi, 1–158.Google Scholar
- 43.Kostinov MP, Zverev VV. Economic effectiveness of vaccination against rotavirus infection in the Russian Federation. Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol. 2012;3:50–5.Google Scholar