Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Tytuł pozycji:

Health economic evidence in clinical guidelines in South Africa: a mixed-methods study.

Tytuł:
Health economic evidence in clinical guidelines in South Africa: a mixed-methods study.
Autorzy:
Wilkinson M; Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, Cape Town, South Africa. .
Hofman KJ; SAMRC Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science, PRICELESS SA, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Young T; Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, Cape Town, South Africa.
Schmidt BM; Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, Cape Town, South Africa.; School of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, Cape Town, South Africa.
Kredo T; Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, Cape Town, South Africa.; Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, Cape Town, South Africa.
Źródło:
BMC health services research [BMC Health Serv Res] 2021 Jul 26; Vol. 21 (1), pp. 738. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Jul 26.
Typ publikacji:
Journal Article
Język:
English
Imprint Name(s):
Original Publication: London : BioMed Central, [2001-
MeSH Terms:
Economics, Medical*
Evidence-Based Medicine*
Federal Government ; Humans ; National Health Programs ; South Africa
References:
Med Decis Making. 2009 Mar-Apr;29(2):207-16. (PMID: 19237645)
CMAJ. 2014 Feb 18;186(3):E123-42. (PMID: 24344144)
Health Res Policy Syst. 2006 Dec 05;4:23. (PMID: 17147813)
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(16):1-69. (PMID: 11427188)
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):380-2. (PMID: 21185693)
Health Policy. 2009 Mar;89(3):261-70. (PMID: 18657336)
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2017 Apr 17;15:5. (PMID: 28428734)
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Feb 05;16(1):4. (PMID: 29402314)
Global Health. 2013 Aug 21;9:35. (PMID: 23965222)
F1000Res. 2017 Dec 11;6:2119. (PMID: 29333249)
Implement Sci. 2012 Jul 04;7:61. (PMID: 22762158)
Chest. 2006 Jan;129(1):182-7. (PMID: 16424430)
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(11):931-45. (PMID: 19888793)
Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012 Dec;9(5):251-5. (PMID: 23256167)
Int J Qual Health Care. 2016 Feb;28(1):122-8. (PMID: 26796486)
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Jul 31;16(1):68. (PMID: 30064440)
Int J Public Health. 2008;53(1):3-4. (PMID: 18522360)
S Afr Med J. 2017 Dec 13;108(1):23-27. (PMID: 29262974)
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016 Aug;14(4):401-407. (PMID: 26818196)
BMJ. 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527-30. (PMID: 10024268)
Contributed Indexing:
Keywords: Clinical practice guidelines; Economic evidence; Evidence-informed decision-making; Focus group; Survey
Entry Date(s):
Date Created: 20210726 Date Completed: 20210727 Latest Revision: 20210729
Update Code:
20240105
PubMed Central ID:
PMC8310693
DOI:
10.1186/s12913-021-06747-z
PMID:
34304743
Czasopismo naukowe
Background: Evidence-informed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are useful tools to inform transparent healthcare decision-making. Consideration of health economic evidence (HEE) during CPG development in a structured manner remains a challenge globally and locally. This study explored the views, current practice, training needs and challenges faced by CPG developers in the production and use of HEE for CPGs in South Africa.
Methods: This mixed-methods study comprised an online survey and a focus group discussion. The survey was piloted and subsequently sent to CPG role players - evidence reviewers, CPG panellists, academics involved with training in relevant disciplines like health economics and public health, implementers and funders. The focus group participants hold strategic roles in CPG development and health economic activities nationally. The survey evaluated mean values, measures of variability, and percentages for Likert scales, while narrative components were thematically analysed. Focus group data were manually coded, thematically analysed and verified.
Results: The survey (n = 55 respondents to 245 surveys distributed) and one focus group (n = 5 participants from 10 people invited) occurred between October 2018 and February 2019. We found the most consistent reason why HEE should inform CPG decisions was 'making more efficient use of limited financial resources'. This was explained by numerous context and methodological barriers. Focus groups participants noted that consideration of complex HEE are not achievable without bolstering skills in applying evidence-based medicine principles. Further concerns include lack of clarity of standard methods; inequitable and opaque topic selection across private and public sectors; inadequate skills of CPG panel members to use HEE; and the ability of health economists to communicate results in accessible ways. Overall, in the absence of clarity about process and methods, politics and interests may drive CPG decisions about which interventions to implement.
Conclusions: HEE should ideally be considered in CPG decisions in South Africa. However, this will remain hampered until the CPG community agree on methods and processes for using HEE in CPGs. Focused investment by national government to address the challenges identified by the study is imperative for a better return on investment as National Health Insurance moves forward.
(© 2021. The Author(s).)
Zaloguj się, aby uzyskać dostęp do pełnego tekstu.

Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies