METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EconLit, Embase (Ovid), the Cochrane Library, and the gray literature. Using a predefined checklist, we extracted the key features of economic evaluation and the general characteristics of EEGs. We conducted a comparative analysis, including a summary of similarities and differences across EEGs.
RESULTS: Thirteen EEGs were identified, three pertaining to lower-middle-income countries (Bhutan, Egypt, and Indonesia), nine to upper-middle-income countries (Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia, Mexico, Russian Federation, South Africa, and Thailand), in addition to Mercosur, and none to low-income countries. The majority (n = 12) considered cost-utility analysis and health-related quality-of-life outcome. Half of the EEGs recommended the societal perspective, whereas the other half recommended the healthcare perspective. Equity considerations were required in ten EEGs. Most EEGs (n = 11) required the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and recommended sensitivity analysis, as well as the presentation of a budget impact analysis (n = 10). Seven of the identified EEGs were mandatory for pharmacoeconomics submission. Methodological gaps, contradictions, and heterogeneity in terminologies used were identified within the guidelines.
CONCLUSION: As the importance of health technology assessment is increasing in LMICs, this systematic review could help researchers explore key aspects of existing EEGs in LMICs and explore differences among them. It could also support international organizations in guiding LMICs to develop their own EEGs and improve the methodological framework of existing ones.
METHODS: All fourth-year pharmacy students enrolled in Monash University in 2017 were provided access to MOVE. Cost-minimization analyses were performed to evaluate the cost of introducing MOVE in the pharmacy course using the smallest cohort size (Malaysia campus) of 40 students as the base case. We also determined under what circumstances MOVE would be more cost-effective, considering the different operational situations such as when student numbers increased or when the number of simulation modules created were increased.
RESULTS: The overall cost of setup and implementation of MOVE in the first year of implementation among 40 students was US $94.38 per student. In comparison, the face-to-face workshop cost was US $64.14 per student. On the second year of implementation, the ongoing cost of operation of MOVE was US $32.86 per student compared with US $58.97 per student using face-to-face workshop. A net benefit using MOVE was observed after the third year of implementation. Larger savings were noted when the cohort size extends larger than 100 students.
CONCLUSIONS: Monash OSCE Virtual Experience was a flexible and cost-effective approach to aid students in preparation for an OSCE and enhanced students' learning experience. The wider applicability of these findings will need to be explored in other settings.
METHODS: The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022270039), and reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Relevant studies were identified through searches in six generic and specialized bibliographic databases, i.e. PubMed, Embase, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, PsycINFO, Health Economic Evaluations Database, tufts CEA registry and EconLit, from their inception to 23 October 2022. The cost-effectiveness of adherence interventions is represented by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The quality of studies was assessed using the quality of the health economics studies (QHES) instrument. Data were narratively synthesized in the form of tables and texts. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, a permutation matrix was used for quantitative data synthesis rather than a meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies, mostly conducted in North America (8/15 studies), were included in the review. The time horizon ranged from a year to a lifetime. Ten out of 15 studies used a micro-simulation, 4/15 studies employed Markov and 1/15 employed a dynamic model. The most commonly used interventions reported include technology based (5/15), nurse involved (2/15), directly observed therapy (2/15), case manager involved (1/15) and others that involved multi-component interventions (5/15). In 1/15 studies, interventions gained higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with cost savings. The interventions in 14/15 studies were more effective but at a higher cost, and the overall ICER was well below the acceptable threshold mentioned in each study, indicating the interventions could potentially be implemented after careful interpretation. The studies were graded as high quality (13/15) or fair quality (2/15), with some methodological inconsistencies reported.
CONCLUSION: Counselling and smartphone-based interventions are cost-effective, and they have the potential to reduce the chronic adherence problem significantly. The quality of decision models can be improved by addressing inconsistencies in model selection, data inputs incorporated into models and uncertainty assessment methods.
METHODS: To construct a practical value framework for traditional non-pharmacological therapies, a scoping review methodology was adopted to identify the evaluation domains and obstacles. A search, screening, and analysis process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Evidence was retrieved from scientific databases and HTA agencies' websites.
RESULTS: The search strategy identified 5 guidelines records and 17 acupuncture HTA reports. By synthesizing the valuable reports of CPM and acupuncture evaluation in representative countries, this study found that Mainland China was promoting the comprehensive value assessment of CPM, whereas the United Kingdom, Singapore, Canada, the United States, and Malaysia had carried out the HTA evaluation of acupuncture for various conditions among which chronic pain was the most common. UK and Singapore applied the HTA results to support acupuncture reimbursement decisions. Three domains, including safety, effectiveness, and economy, were commonly adopted. The identified biggest challenge of evaluating traditional non-pharmacological therapies is the scarce high-quality clinical evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified value domains and issues of traditional therapies, and pointed out future research implications, to promote the development value framework of traditional therapies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in 10 databases from inception until February 2018. All economic evaluations assessing the economic evaluation of telemedicine in diabetes were eligible for inclusion. We subsequently evaluated the study quality in terms of effectiveness measures, cost measure, economic model, as well as time horizon.
RESULTS: Of the 1877 studies identified, 14 articles were included in our final review. The healthcare providers' fees are a major predictor for total cost. In particular, the use of telemedicine for retinal screening was beneficial and cost-effective for diabetes management, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between $113.48/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $3,328.46/QALY (adjusted to 2017 inflation rate). Similarly, the use of telemonitoring and telephone reminders was cost-effective in diabetes management.
CONCLUSIONS: Among all telemedicine strategies examined, teleophthalmology was the most cost-effective intervention. Future research is needed to provide evidence on the long-term experience of telemedicine and facilitate resource allocation.
METHODS: A search for economic evaluation studies was conducted from inception to 30 September 2022, on PubMed, Embase, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry by Tufts Medical Centre, EconLit and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). Eligible studies were included if they were (1) conducted among adults ages 18 years old and older who were smokers attempting to quit for the first time; (2) compared varenicline to behaviour support with bupropion or NRT, behaviour support alone and unaided cessation; and (3) performed a CEA or cost-utility analysis. The INBs were calculated and pooled across studies stratified by country income level and study perspective using the random-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochrane Q statistic.
RESULTS: Of the 1433 identified studies, 18 studies were included in our review. Our findings from healthcare system/payer perspective suggested that the use of varenicline is statistically significantly cost-effective compared with bupropion (pooled INB, $830.75 [95% confidence interval, $208.23, $1453.28]), NRTs ($636.16 [$192.48, $1079.84]) and unaided cessation ($4212.35 [$1755.79, $6668.92]) in high-income countries. Similarly, varenicline is also found to be cost-effective compared to bupropion ($2706.27 [$1284.44, $4128.11]), NRTs ($3310.01 [$1781.53, $4838.50]) and behavioural support alone ($5438.22 [$4105.99, $6770.46]) in low- and middle-income countries.
CONCLUSION: Varenicline is cost-effective as a smoking cessation aid when compared with behavioural support with bupropion or nicotine replacement therapies and behavioural support alone in both high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries, from the healthcare system/payer perspective in adult smokers who attempt to quit for the first time.
METHODS: A traditional F2F workshop on hepatitis management was conducted with 364 students in 2021 and was compared with a virtual self-run escape room game called Hepatitiscape™, which was used by 417 students in 2022. The outcomes were final examination and objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) scores for hepatitis stations. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to compare costs and outcomes. Student perceptions of the delivery of Hepatitiscape™ were also captured using an online questionnaire.
RESULTS: Delivering the hepatitis case workshop via Hepatitiscape™ yielded an additional 4.77% increase in the final examination score and a 21.04% increase in the OSCE score at an additional cost of AUD $4212 in the first year compared with F2F delivery. This equated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of AUD 883 per additional score of final examination and AUD 200 per additional score of OSCE for hepatitis stations. Hepatitiscape™ became cost saving from the second year onward. Student perception data revealed their recall of content was higher owing to the iterative design of the gaming elements.
CONCLUSIONS: Hepatitiscape™ is likely to be a cost-effective strategy to deliver workshops that are routinely delivered F2F to test knowledge-based constructs. In addition, virtual gaming has a logistical advantage over F2F delivery in that it enhances student participation from remote locations and allows for better control and flexibility of content delivery with increasing or decreasing cohort sizes, and can have potential long-term sustainable savings.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm, parallel, open-label, multicentre, cluster randomised, two-stage adaptive design trial is proposed to first evaluate the superiority of mTB-Tobacco, compared with usual care and then the non-inferiority of mTB-tobacco compared with face-to-face behaviour support. Study settings include TB treatment centres in Bangladesh and Pakistan. The study population includes adult patients, newly diagnosed (within 4 weeks) with pulmonary TB disease, daily smokers, willing to quit and have access to mobile phones. The primary outcome includes biochemically verified continuous smoking abstinence assessed at 6 months per Russell Standard. A generalised linear mixed-effects model will be used to assess the impact of mTB-Tobacco intervention on continuous outcomes, incorporating fixed effects for the intervention, random effects for clusters and relevant covariates. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be done to estimate the cost per quitter and cost per quality-adjusted life year gained, calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to establish the value for money for mTB-Tobacco.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial will be conducted in compliance with International Council on Harmonisation - Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki. The study has been approved by the ethics committees of the University of Edinburgh Medical School Research Ethics Committee (EMREC) of UK, the Bangladesh Medical Research Council (BMRC) and the National Bioethics Committee (PMRC) of Pakistan. The results of this trial will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented in academic conferences.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN86971818 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN86971818); pre-enrolment, submission date: 29 August 2023; registration date: 11 September 2023.