IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v89y2009i2p193-200.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From cost-effectiveness information to decision-making on liquid-based cytology: Mind the gap

Author

Listed:
  • Legood, Rosa
  • Wolstenholme, Jane
  • Gray, Alastair

Abstract

Objective This paper explores the policy process involved in the production of cost-effectiveness information in the context of both national and local policy-making requirements. We use the decision to implement a new technology for cervical cancer screening (liquid-based cytology) in England as a case study.Methods The analysis traces the initial decision by the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence to commission further research before implementing this new technology, the economic data produced as a result, the final decision nationally and the implications for decision-makers locally.Results The paper highlights a number of reasons why there may be a gap between the evidence produced by a cost-effectiveness analysis and the information needs of the decision-maker. For example there are difficulties in estimating whether savings in staff time are realisable. In addition, even after a technology has been deemed cost-effective and is recommended for national implementation, further questions remain at the local level, including identifying the most cost-effective way to implement a technology, and selecting the best supplier.Conclusion In order to make cost-effective implementation decisions, local decision-makers require economic data in addition to that required for the national recommendation, and this deserves recognition and further research.

Suggested Citation

  • Legood, Rosa & Wolstenholme, Jane & Gray, Alastair, 2009. "From cost-effectiveness information to decision-making on liquid-based cytology: Mind the gap," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 193-200, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:89:y:2009:i:2:p:193-200
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(08)00135-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Locock, Louise & Dopson, Sue & Chambers, David & Gabbay, John, 2001. "Understanding the role of opinion leaders in improving clinical effectiveness," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 745-757, September.
    2. Drummond, Michael & Cooke, Jonathan & Walley, Tom, 1997. "Economic evaluation under managed competition: Evidence from the U.K," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 583-595, August.
    3. Ross, Jayne, 1995. "The use of economic evaluation in health care: Australian decision makers' perceptions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 103-110, February.
    4. Stirling Bryan & Iestyn Williams & Shirley McIver, 2007. "Seeing the NICE side of cost‐effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 179-193, February.
    5. Duthie, Tessa & Trueman, Paul & Chancellor, Jeremy & Diez, Lara, 1999. "Research into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom--Phase II: Is health economics `for good or evil'?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 143-157, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2008. "A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(2-3), pages 129-141, May.
    2. Williams, Iestyn P. & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England: Findings from research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(10), pages 2116-2129, November.
    3. W. Dominika Wranik & Liesl Gambold & Natasha Hanson & Adrian Levy, 2017. "The evolution of the cancer formulary review in Canada: Can centralization improve the use of economic evaluation?," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 232-260, April.
    4. Hoffmann, Christiane AU -, 2000. "The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making.: A European survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 179-192, July.
    5. Williams, Iestyn & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: A conceptual framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 135-143, January.
    6. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Julie Ratcliffe & Kate Halton & Nicholas Graves, 2015. "Bridging the Gap: Exploring the Barriers to Using Economic Evidence in Healthcare Decision Making and Strategies for Improving Uptake," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 303-309, June.
    7. Stirling Bryan & Iestyn Williams & Shirley McIver, 2007. "Seeing the NICE side of cost‐effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 179-193, February.
    8. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Pauline Zardo & Nicholas Graves, 2019. "Applying an Implementation Framework to the Use of Evidence from Economic Evaluations in Making Healthcare Decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 533-543, August.
    9. Elias Asfaw Zegeye & Josue Mbonigaba & Sylvia Blanche Kaye & Thomas Wilkinson, 2017. "Economic Evaluation in Ethiopian Healthcare Sector Decision Making: Perception, Practice and Barriers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 33-43, February.
    10. James Mason & Martin Eccles & Nick Freemantle & Mike Drummond, 1998. "NICEly does it: economic analysis within evidence-based clinical practice guidelines," Working Papers 164chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    11. Karin Cerri & Martin Knapp & Jose-Luis Fernandez, 2014. "Public funding of pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands: investigating the effect of evidence, process and context on CVZ decision-making," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 681-695, September.
    12. Hwa-Young Lee & Thuy Thi-Thu Nguyen & Saeun Park & Van Minh Hoang & Woong-Han Kim, 2021. "Health Technology Assessment Development in Vietnam: A Qualitative Study of Current Progress, Barriers, Facilitators, and Future Strategies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-13, August.
    13. Mason, James & Eccles, Martin & Freemantle, Nick & Drummond, Michael, 1999. "A framework for incorporating cost-effectiveness in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 37-52, April.
    14. Gijs Wetering & Willem Woertman & Eddy Adang, 2012. "Time to incorporate time in cost-effectiveness analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(3), pages 223-226, June.
    15. Ariel BenYishay & A. Mushfiq Mobarak, 2014. "Social Learning and Communication," NBER Working Papers 20139, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Gallagher, Siun & Little, Miles, 2019. "Procedural justice and the individual participant in priority setting: Doctors' experiences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 75-84.
    17. Michael E. Otim & Augustine D. Asante & Margaret Kelaher & Ian P. Anderson & Stephen Jan, 2016. "Acceptability of programme budgeting and marginal analysis as a tool for routine priority setting in Indigenous health," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 277-295, July.
    18. Leonie Segal & Kim Dalziel & Duncan Mortimer, 2010. "Fixing the game: are between‐silo differences in funding arrangements handicapping some interventions and giving others a head‐start?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 449-465, April.
    19. Greenhalgh, Trisha & Robert, Glenn & Macfarlane, Fraser & Bate, Paul & Kyriakidou, Olympia & Peacock, Richard, 2005. "Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 417-430, July.
    20. Edward C. F. Wilson & Stuart J. Peacock & Danny Ruta, 2009. "Priority setting in practice: what is the best way to compare costs and benefits?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 467-478, April.

    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:eee:hepoli:v:89:y:2009:i:2:p:193-200. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.