Valuing Meta-Health Effects for Use in Economic Evaluations to Inform Reimbursement Decisions: A Review of the Evidence
This review explores the evidence from the literature regarding how meta-health effects (effects other than health resulting from the consumption of health care) are valued for use in economic evaluations.
A systematic review of the published literature (the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit and SocINDEX databases were searched for publications in March 2016, plus manual searching) investigated the associations between study methods and the resulting values for meta-health effects estimated for use in economic evaluations. The review considered which meta-health effects were being valued and how this differed by evaluation approach, intervention investigated, source of funds and year of publication. Detailed reasons for differences observed between values for comparable meta-health effects were explored, accounting for the method of valuation.
The search of the literature revealed 71 studies of interest; 35% involved drug interventions, with convenience, information and process of care the three meta-health effects most often investigated. Key associations with the meta-health effects were the evaluation method, the intervention, and the source of funds. Relative values for meta-health effects ranged from 0.9% to 68% of the overall value reported in a study. For a given meta-health effect, the magnitude of the effect evaluated and how the meta-health effect was described and framed relative to overall health explained the differences in relative values.
Evidence from the literature shows variability in how meta-health effects are being measured for use in economic evaluations. Understanding the sources of that variability is important if decision makers are to have confidence in how meta-health effects are valued.
KeywordsEconomic Evaluation Assisted Reproductive Technology Contingent Valuation Valuation Method Conjoint Analysis
The authors acknowledge the contribution of Liz Chinchen in conducting the initial search of the literature and assisting with refinement of the search criteria. They also acknowledge the contributions made by the anonymous reviewers at Pharmacoeconomics in refining this article.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This research was completed as part of a Ph.D. programme for Richard De Abreu Lourenco, who was a recipient of the University of Technology Sydney Business School Ph.D. Scholarship.
No funding was received specifically for the conduct of this research.
Conflict of interest
Richard De Abreu Lourenco has no conflicts of interest to declare. Professor Marion Haas, Professor Jane Hall and Professor Rosalie Viney have no conflicts of interest to declare. There was no requirement for this study to undergo review by a Human Research Ethics Committee.
RAL was responsible for the design of this research, review of the literature searches, data abstraction and analysis, and manuscript preparation. Professors MH, JH and RV were involved in defining the parameters of the research, resolving questions regarding study inclusion, interpretation of the analysis, and manuscript preparation. All authors take responsibility for the final version of this article.
- 48.Yee LM, Kaimal AJ, Houston KA, et al. Mode of delivery preferences in a diverse population of pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(377):e1–24.Google Scholar
- 55.Davison SN, Kromm SK, Currie GR. Patient and health professional preferences for organ allocation and procurement, end-of-life care and organization of care for patients with chronic kidney disease using a discrete choice experiment. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2010;25:2334–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 84.Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2006.Google Scholar
- 85.Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. General methods. Cologne; 2015.Google Scholar
- 86.Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. In: Department of Health (ed). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2013.Google Scholar