Author
Abstract
Economic evaluations have been increasingly conducted in different countries to aid national decision-making bodies in resource allocation problems based on current and prospective evidence on costs and effects data for a set of competing health care interventions. In 2016, the Dutch National Health Care Institute issued new guidelines that aggregated and updated previous recommendations on key elements for conducting economic evaluation. However, the impact on standard practice after the introduction of the guidelines in terms of design, methodology and reporting choices, is still uncertain. To assess this impact, we examine and compare key analysis components of economic evaluations conducted in the Netherlands before (2010–2015) and after (2016–2020) the introduction of the recent guidelines. We specifically focus on two aspects of the analysis that are crucial in determining the plausibility of the results: statistical methodology and missing data handling. Our review shows how, over the last period, many components of economic evaluations have changed in accordance with the new recommendations towards more transparent and advanced analytic approaches. However, potential limitations are identified in terms of the use of less advanced statistical software together with rarely satisfactory information to support the choice of missing data methods, especially in sensitivity analysis.
Suggested Citation
Gabrio, Andrea, 2024.
"A review of heath economic evaluation practice in the Netherlands: are we moving forward?,"
Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 174-191, April.
Handle:
RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:19:y:2024:i:2:p:174-191_3
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:19:y:2024:i:2:p:174-191_3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.