, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 149–160 | Cite as

Differences in Attitudes, Knowledge and Use of Economic Evaluations in Decision-Making in The Netherlands

The Dutch Results from the EUROMET Project
  • Jeannette E. F. Zwart-van RijkomEmail author
  • Hubertus G. M. Leufkens
  • Jan J. V. Busschbach
  • André W. Broekmans
  • Frans F. H. Rutten
Original Research Article


Objective: To investigate differences in attitudes, knowledge and actual use of economic evaluations in different groups of decision-makers, and to compare the results from the Netherlands with the overall European results of the European Network on Methodology and Application of Economic Evaluation Techniques (EUROMET) project.

Design and setting: Members of the EUROMET group conducted interviews and surveys with politicians, regulators, hospital pharmacists and physicians in The Netherlands. Three approaches of investigation could be adopted: (i) a postal questionnaire survey, (ii) semi-structured interviews, and (iii) a focus-group approach.

Main outcome measures and results: In the Netherlands, decision-makers generally have a positive attitude towards economic evaluations. Nevertheless, their actual use and knowledge of economic evaluations are still limited. Hospital pharmacists and regulators are more objective than physicians and politicians, who also base their judgements on other societal values. Hospital pharmacists and regulators have a greater knowledge of economic evaluations, and they use them more often than the other groups. Most decision-makers do not want to base their decisions strictly on a cost-effectiveness ranking alone. Our findings were similar to the findings in other European countries.

Conclusions: Decision-makers prefer to make their own broad comparisons of advantages and disadvantages, and do not base their decisions solely on a single summary measure.


Economic Evaluation Postal Questionnaire Allocative Efficiency Hospital Pharmacist Gross National Product 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The research for this article was supported by the EU-Biomed II project (European Network on Methodology and Application of Economic Evaluation Techniques) [project number BMH4-CT96-1666].


  1. 1.
    Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. What do we do about costs? JAMA 1990; 264: 1161, 1165, 1169–70Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    OECD Health Data 1998 [CD-ROM]. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1998Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williams A. Cost-effectiveness analysis: is it ethical? J Med Ethics 1992; 18: 7–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alban A. Economic appraisal: what is the use? Presented at the Third Nordic Health Economists’ Study Group. Available from the Danish Hospital Institute, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alban A. The role of economic appraisal in Denmark. Soc Sci Med 1994; 38: 1647–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davies L, Coyle D, Drummond M. Current status of economic appraisal of health technology in the european community: report of the network. The EC network on the methodology of economic appraisal of health technology. Soc Sci Med 1994; 38: 1601–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drummond M, Cooke J, Walley T. Economic evaluation under managed competition: evidence from the UK. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45: 583–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duthie T, Trueman P, Chancellor J, et al. Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom, phase II: is health economics ’for good or evil’? Health Policy 1999; 46: 143–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elsinga E, Rutten FF. Economic evaluation in support of national health policy: the case of The Netherlands. Soc SciMed 1997; 45: 605–20Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Von der Schulenburg JM. The influence of economic evaluation studies on health care decision-making — a European survey. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2000Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Organisation for Quality Assurance in Hospitals (CBO). Treatment and prevention of coronary heart disease through lowering serum cholesterol levels. Utrecht: National Organisation for Quality Assurance in Hospitals (CBO), 1998: 86Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eddy DM. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Cost-effectiveness analysis: a conversation with my father. JAMA 1992; 267: 1669–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Menzel P, Gold MR, Nord E, et al. Toward a broader view of values in cost-effectiveness analysis of health. Hastings Cent Rep 1999; 29: 7–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nord E, Pinto JL, Richardson J, et al. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Econ 1999; 8: 25–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mosteller F, Ware JE, Levine S. Finale panel: comments on the conference on advances in health status assessment. Med Care 1989; 27: S282–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anonymous. Netherlands to have pharmacoeconomic guidelinesScrip 1999 Apr 23; 2431: 6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeannette E. F. Zwart-van Rijkom
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hubertus G. M. Leufkens
    • 2
  • Jan J. V. Busschbach
    • 1
  • André W. Broekmans
    • 1
  • Frans F. H. Rutten
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Medical Technology AssessmentErasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacoepidemiology and PharmacotherapyUtrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS)UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations