IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v15y2017i2d10.1007_s40258-016-0290-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Alessandro G. Campolina

    (Cancer Institute of Sao Paulo (ICESP), University of São Paulo School of Medicine
    National Institute for Science and Technology for Health Technology Assessment (IATS/CNPq))

  • Luciana M. Rozman

    (University of São Paulo School of Medicine)

  • Tassia C. Decimoni

    (University of São Paulo School of Medicine)

  • Roseli Leandro

    (University of São Paulo School of Medicine)

  • Hillegonda M. D. Novaes

    (University of São Paulo School of Medicine
    National Institute for Science and Technology for Health Technology Assessment (IATS/CNPq))

  • Patrícia Coelho De Soárez

    (University of São Paulo School of Medicine
    National Institute for Science and Technology for Health Technology Assessment (IATS/CNPq))

Abstract

Background Little is known about the quality and quantity of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in Brazil. Objective The objective of this study was to provide a systematic review of published CUAs of healthcare technologies in Brazil. Methods We performed a systematic review of economic evaluations studies published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment) Database, Web of Science, Scopus, Bireme (Biblioteca Regional de Medicina), BVS ECOS (Health Economics database of the Brazilian Virtual Library of Health), and SISREBRATS (Sistema de Informação da Rede Brasileira de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde [Brazilian Network for the Evaluation of Health Technologies]) from 1980 to 2013. Articles were included if they were CUAs according to the classification devised by Drummond et al. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and carried out data extraction. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or through consultation with a third reviewer. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis. Results Of the 535 health economic evaluations (HEEs) relating to Brazil, only 40 were CUAs and therefore included in the analysis. Most studies adhered to methodological guidelines for quality of reporting and 77.5% used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the health outcome. Of these studies, 51.6% did not report the population used to elicit preferences for outcomes and 45.2% used a specific population such as expert opinion. The preference elicitation method was not reported in 58.1% of these studies. The majority (80.6%) of studies did not report the instrument used to derive health state valuations and no publication reported whether tariffs (or preference weights) were national or international. No study mentioned the methodology used to estimate QALYs. Conclusions Many published Brazilian cost-utility studies adhere to key recommended general methods for HEE; however, the use of QALY calculations is far from being the current international standard. Development of health preferences research can contribute to quality improvement of health technology assessment reports in Brazil.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandro G. Campolina & Luciana M. Rozman & Tassia C. Decimoni & Roseli Leandro & Hillegonda M. D. Novaes & Patrícia Coelho De Soárez, 2017. "Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 163-172, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0290-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0290-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0290-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-016-0290-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 367-372, June.
    3. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    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. Susanne Mayer & Noemi Kiss & Agata Łaszewska & Judit Simon, 2017. "Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Valentin Brodszky & Zsuzsanna Beretzky & Petra Baji & Fanni Rencz & Márta Péntek & Alexandru Rotar & Konstantin Tachkov & Susanne Mayer & Judit Simon & Maciej Niewada & Rok Hren & László Gulácsi, 2019. "Cost-of-illness studies in nine Central and Eastern European countries," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 155-172, June.
    3. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    4. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    5. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    6. Thomas Grochtdreis & Hans-Helmut König & Alexander Dobruschkin & Gunhild von Amsberg & Judith Dams, 2018. "Cost-effectiveness analyses and cost analyses in castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-25, December.
    7. Kim Edmunds & Penny Reeves & Paul Scuffham & Daniel A. Galvão & Robert U. Newton & Mark Jones & Nigel Spry & Dennis R. Taaffe & David Joseph & Suzanne K. Chambers & Haitham Tuffaha, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Supervised Exercise Training in Men with Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Radiation Therapy and Androgen-Deprivation Therapy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 727-737, October.
    8. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Dementia Patients and their Caregivers - A Systematic Literature Review," Working Papers 2018:10, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    9. Jesse Elliott & Sasha Katwyk & Bláthnaid McCoy & Tammy Clifford & Beth K. Potter & Becky Skidmore & George A. Wells & Doug Coyle, 2019. "Decision Models for Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Pediatric Drug-Resistant Epilepsy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1261-1276, October.
    10. Wei Zhang & Aslam Anis, 2014. "Health-Related Productivity Loss: NICE to Recognize Soon, Good to Discuss Now," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 425-427, May.
    11. Zachary Tirrell & Alicia Norman & Martin Hoyle & Sean Lybrand & Bonny Parkinson, 2024. "Bring Out Your Dead: A Review of the Cost Minimisation Approach in Health Technology Assessment Submissions to the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 42(11), pages 1287-1300, November.
    12. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Dan Greenberg & Josephine Mauskopf & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & David Moher & Elizabeth Loder & Chris Carswell, 2015. "Reply to Roberts et al.: CHEERS is Sufficient for Reporting Cost-Benefit Analysis, but May Require Further Elaboration," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 535-536, May.
    13. Andrew Briggs & Rachel Nugent, 2016. "Editorial," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 6-8, February.
    14. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Federico Augustovski & Esther Bekker-Grob & Andrew H. Briggs & Chris Carswell & Lisa Caulley & Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk & Dan Greenberg & Elizabeth Loder & Josephine Ma, 2022. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(8), pages 1309-1317, November.
    15. Neily Zakiyah & Antoinette D I van Asselt & Frank Roijmans & Maarten J Postma, 2016. "Economic Evaluation of Family Planning Interventions in Low and Middle Income Countries; A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    16. Kathryn Schnippel & Naomi Lince-Deroche & Theo van den Handel & Seithati Molefi & Suann Bruce & Cynthia Firnhaber, 2015. "Cost Evaluation of Reproductive and Primary Health Care Mobile Service Delivery for Women in Two Rural Districts in South Africa," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Andrea Iannaccone & Thomas Marwick, 2015. "Cost Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared with Medical Management or Surgery for Patients with Aortic Stenosis," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 29-45, February.
    18. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & James Davies & Lieven Annemans, 2014. "A Review of the Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacist Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1185-1199, December.
    19. Paul Tappenden & James Chilcott, 2014. "Avoiding and Identifying Errors and Other Threats to the Credibility of Health Economic Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 967-979, October.
    20. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0290-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.