Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 467–479 | Cite as

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Literature in Thailand

Are the Data Good Enough to be Used by Policy-Makers?
  • Yot Teerawattananon
  • Steve Russell
  • Miranda Mugford
Review Article

Abstract

In many countries, including Thailand, there is an increasing impetus to use economic evaluation to allow more explicit and transparent healthcare priority setting. However, an important question for policy makers in low- and middle-income countries is whether it is appropriate and feasible to introduce economic evaluation data into healthcare priority-setting decisions. In addition to ethical, social and political issues, information supply challenges need to be addressed. This paper systematically reviewed the literature on economic evaluation of health technology in Thailand published between 1982 and 2005. Its aim was to analyse the quantity, quality and targeting of economic evaluation studies that can provide a framework for those conducting similar reviews in other settings.

The review revealed that, although the number of publications reporting economic evaluations has increased significantly in recent years, serious attention needs to be given to the quality of reporting and analysis. Furthermore, there is an absence of economic evaluation publications for 15 of the top 20 major health problems in Thailand, indicating a poor distribution of research resources towards the determination of cost-effective interventions for diminishing the disease burden of certain major health problems. If economic evaluation is only useful for policy makers when performed correctly and reported accurately, these findings depict information barriers to using economic evaluation to assist health decision-making processes in Thailand.

Keywords

Economic Evaluation Major Health Problem Economic Evaluation Study Growth Hormone Replacement Therapy Thai Context 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was partly supported by the Setting Priorities using Information on Cost-Effectiveness (SPICE) project, which is supported by an international collaborative research grant from the Wellcome Trust, UK (071842/Z/03/Z) and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (301199).

At the time this study was conducted, Y. Teerawattananon was under the Fellowship Program of the World Health Organization and pursuing his PhD at the University of East Anglia.

The authors thank Miss Sanya Srirattana and Miss Suwanna Mukem for their help in the literature review. We are also indebted to Stephen Lim, Sripen Tantivess and two anonymous reviewers whose comments significantly improved our manuscript.

The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the contents of this review.

Supplementary material

40273_2012_25060467_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (146 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 149 KB.

References

  1. 1.
    Doherty J, Kamae I, Lee KKC, et al. What is next for pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Asia? Value Health 2004; 7 (2): 118–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tangcharoesnathien V, Srithamrongswat S, Pittayarangsarit S. Overview of health insurance systems. In: Thammathataree J, editor. Health insurance systems in Thailand. Bangkok: Desire Publisher; 2001: 28–37Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Teerawattananon Y, Tangcharoensathien V. Designing a reproductive health services package in the universal health insurance scheme in Thailand: match and mismatch of need, demand and supply. Health Policy Plan 2004; 19 Suppl. 1: i31–i39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pannarunothai S, Patmasiriwat D, Srithamrongsawat S. Universal health coverage in Thailand: ideas for reform and policy struggling. Health Policy 2004; 68 (1): 17–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hoffmann C. The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making: a european survey. Health Policy 2000; 52 (3): 179–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Teerawattananon Y, Mugford M, Tangcharoensathien V. Economic evaluation of palliative management versus peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease: evidence for coverage decisions in Thailand. Value Health 2007; 10 (1): 61–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stolk EA, Brouwer WB, Busschbach JJ. Rationalising rationing: economic and other considerations in the debate about funding of Viagra. Health Policy 2002; 59 (1): 53–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walker D, Fox-Rushby J. Economic evaluation of communicable disease interventions in developing countries: a critical review of the published literature. Health Econ 2000; 9: 681–698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee KS, Brouwer WB, Lee SI, et al. Introducing economic evaluation as a policy tool in Korea: will decision makers get quality information? A critical review of published Korean economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 2005; 23 (7): 709–721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Brien BJ. A tale of two (or more) cities: geographic transferability of pharmacoeconomic data. Am J Manag Care 1997; 3 Suppl.: S33–S39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Drummond M, Pang F. Transferability of economic evaluation results. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001: 256–276Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Teerawattananon Y, Mugford M. Is it worth offering a routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy in developing countries? A Thailand case study. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2005; 3 (1): 10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996; 313: 275–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, et al. Method for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cooper N, Coyle D, Abrams K, et al. Use of evidence in decision models: an appraisal of health technology assessments in the UK since 1997. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005 Oct; 10 (4): 245–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bundhamcharoen K, Teerawattananon Y, Theo V, et al. Burden of disease and injuries in Thailand: priority setting for policy. The Thai Working Group on Burden of Disease and Injuries. Bangkok: Printing House of the War Veterans Organization of Thailand, 2002 [online]. Available at URL: http://203.157.19.191/BURDEN.pdf [Accessed 14 Sep 2006]Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Murray C, Lopez A. The global burden of diseases: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. Boston: Harvard School of Public Health, WHO and World Bank, 1996Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Neumann PJ, Rosen AB, Greenberg D, et al. Can we better prioritize resources for cost-utility research? Med Decis Making 2005; 25 (4): 429–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oliver A. Health economic evaluation in Japan: a case study of one aspect of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003; 63 (2): 197–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neumann P. Using cost-effectiveness analysis to improve health care: opportunities and barriers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coast J. Is economic evaluation in touch with society’s health values? BMJ 2004; 329 (7476): 1233–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tan-Torres E, Baltussen R, Adum T, et al. Making CHOICES in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2003Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care 2005; 43 (7 Suppl.): 5–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wiwanitkit V. Comparison of cost effectiveness between measuring the serum erythropoietin level and reticulocyte count for monitoring thalassemic patients: a note in Thai beta thalassemia/HbE subjects. Hematology 2004; 9 (4): 311–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cairns J. Discounting in economic evaluation. In: Drummond M, McGuire A, editors. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    World Health Organization. The world health report 2002: reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yot Teerawattananon
    • 1
  • Steve Russell
    • 2
  • Miranda Mugford
    • 3
  1. 1.International Health Policy ProgramMinistry of Public HealthNonthaburiThailand
  2. 2.School of Development StudiesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  3. 3.School of Medicine, Health Policy and PracticeUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations