Advertisement

Evaluation Procedure

  • Volker Eric Amelung
Chapter
Part of the Springer Texts in Business and Economics book series (STBE)

Abstract

In health science evaluation refers to a comprehensive assessment and evaluation of the benefits and costs of healthcare technology. The term “healthcare technology” is very broad and includes the following processes and products:

Literature

  1. Ackley, B. J., Swan, B. A., Ladwig, G., & Tucker, S. (2008). Evidence-based nursing care guidelines: Medical-surgical interventions. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Adamowicz, V. & Boxhall, P. (2001). Future directions of stated choice methods for environment valuation. Conference choice experiments: A new approach to environmental valuation. London.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, T. F., & Mooney, G. (1990). The challenges of medical practice variations. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antes, G. (1998). EBM praktizieren. In M. Perleth & G. Antes (Eds.), Evidenzbasierte Medizin (pp. 19–26). Munich: Urban & Vogel.Google Scholar
  5. Antes, G., Bassler, D., & Forster, J. (2003). Evidenz-basierte Medizin. Stuttgart: Thieme.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antonanzas, F., & Rodriguez, R. (2010). Feeding the economics of obesity in the EU in a healthy way. The European Journal of Health Economics, 11(4), 351–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bridges, J., Onukwugha, E., Johnson, F., & Hauber, A. (2007). Patient preference methods – A patient centered evaluation paradigm. ISPOR Connections, 13(6), 4–7.Google Scholar
  9. Bridges, J. F., Kinter, E. T., Kidane, L., et al. (2008). Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: Trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982–2007. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 14(4), 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bucher, H. C., Egger, M., Schmidt, J. G., et al. (1996). Evidence based medicine: Ein Ansatz zu einer rationaleren Medizin (Vol. 77, pp. 1660–1667). Schweizer Ärztezeitung.Google Scholar
  11. Chapman, G. B., & Sonnenberg, F. A. (2003). Decision making in health care: Theory, psychology and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Donabedian, A. (1966). Evaluating the quality of care. Milbank Memory Fund Quarterly, 2, 166–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programs (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gehardus, A. & Dintsios, C. M. (2002). Der Einfluss von HTA-Berichten auf die gesundheitspolitische Entscheidungsfindung. Eine systematische Übersichtsarbeit. GMS Health Technology Assessment. http://bibnet.org/vufind/Record/ccmed957834703. Hannover.
  15. Gold, M. R., Siegel, J. E., Russel, L. B., & Weinstein, M. C. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Goodman, C. (1996). A basic methodological toolkit. In A. Szczepura & J. Kankaanpää (Eds.), Assessment of health care technologies: Case studies, key concepts and strategic issues (pp. 29–65). Weinheim: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Gray, M. (2009). Evidence-based Healthcare and Public Health: How to make decisions about health services and public health (3rd ed.). Edinburgh: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  18. Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(1), 3–19.Google Scholar
  20. Heidbrink, M. (2006). Reliabilität und Validität von Verfahren der Präferenzmessung. Ein meta-analytischer Vergleich verschiedener Verfahren der Conjoint-Analyse. Holling: Universität Münster, Philosophische Fakultät.Google Scholar
  21. Henderson, J. W. (2011). Health economics and policy (5th ed.). South Western: Educational Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson, F. R., Ozdemir, S., Hauber, B., & Kauf, T. L. (2007). Women’s willingness to accept perceived risks for vasomotor symptom relief. Journal of Womens Health (Larchmt), 16(7), 1028–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krauth, C. (2010). Methoden der Kostenbestimmung in der gesundheitsökonomischen evaluation. Gesundheitsökonomie and Qualitätsmanagement, 15, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lancsar, E., & Louviere, J. (2008). Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: A user’s guide. PharmacoEconomics, 26(8), 661–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Margraf, J. (2002). Motivation von Arzt und Patient. BDA-Manual Adipositas, ifap Service-Institut für Äzte und Apotheker GmbH.Google Scholar
  29. Marshall, D. (2013). A radical idea: Make patient preferences an integral part of health ISPOR Connections, 19(1), 3–4.Google Scholar
  30. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka, 1974, 105–142.Google Scholar
  31. McIntosh, E. (2006). Using discrete choice experiments within a cost-benefit analysis framework: Some considerations. PharmacoEconomics, 24(9), 855–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mühlbacher, A., & Johnson, F. R. (2016). Choice experiments to quantify preferences for health and healthcare: State of the practice. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 14(3), 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mühlbacher, A.C., Juhnke, C. & Bethge, S. (2010). Experts’ judgment on patient centered coordinated care. ISPOR 13th Annual European Congress: Health Technology Assessment. Prague: A European Collaboration.Google Scholar
  34. Mühlbacher, A. C., Bethge, S., Reed, S. D., & Schulman, K. A. (2016). Patient preferences for features of health care delivery systems: A discrete choice experiment. Health Services Research, 51(2), 704–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Muir Gray, J. A. (1997). Evidence-based health care. New York: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  36. O’Brien, B. J., Goeree, R., Gafni, A., et al. (1998). Assessing the value of a new pharmaceutical. A feasibility study of contingent valuation in managed care. Medical Care, 36(3), 370–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Perleth, M., Busse, R., Gerhardus, A., Gibis, B., & Lühmann, D. (2008). Health technology assessment. Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  38. Ryan, M., Gerard, K., & Amaya-Amaya, M. (2008). Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care (The economics of non-market goods and resources) (Vol. 11). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sackett, D. L. (1998). Was ist Evidenz-basierte Medizin? In M. Perleth & G. Antes (Eds.), Evidenz-basierte Medizin (pp. 9–18). Munich: Urban & Vogel.Google Scholar
  40. Santerre, R. E., & Neun, S. P. (2009). Health economics: Theories, insights and industry studies. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  41. Schöffski, O., & von der Schulenburg, J. M. G. (Eds.). (2008). Gesundheitsökonomische Evaluationen. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Schöffski, O., & Graf von der Schulenburg, J. M. (2011). Gesundheitsökonomische Evaluation (4th ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Stockli, R., & Keller, U. (2002). From obesity to diabetes. Therapeutische Umschau, 59(8), 388–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Street, D. J., & Burgess, L. (2007). The construction of optimal stated choice experiments, theory and methods. New Jersey: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Telser, H. (2002). Nutzenmessung im Gesundheitswesen: die Methode der Discrete-Choice-Experimente. Hamburg: Kovac.Google Scholar
  46. Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tsai, A. G., Williamson, D. F., & Glick, H. A. (2011). Direct medical cost of overweight and obesity in the United States: A quantitative systematic review. Obesity Reviews, 12(1), 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Turner-Bowker, D. M., Bartley, P. J., & Ware, J. E. (2002). SF-36® health survey & “SF” bibliography (3rd ed.). Lincoln: Quality Metric Incorporated.Google Scholar
  49. WHO (World Health Organization). (2006). Europäische Charta zur Bekämpfung der Adipositas. In: Europäische Ministerkonferenz der WHO zur Bekämpfung der Adipositas, Ernährung und Bewegung für die Gesundheit. Istanbul: WHO.Google Scholar
  50. Wismar, M., & Busse, R. (2002). Outcome-related health targets-political strategies for better health outcomes – A conceptual and comparative study (part 2). Health Policy, 59(3), 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zweifel, P., Breyer, F., & Kifmann, M. (2009). Health economics (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Volker Eric Amelung
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems ResearchHannover Medical SchoolHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Health Sciences Research INAV GmbHBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations