IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v19y2018i1d10.1007_s10198-017-0868-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A methodological framework for assessing agreement between cost-effectiveness outcomes estimated using alternative sources of data on treatment costs and effects for trial-based economic evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Felix Achana

    (University of Warwick)

  • Stavros Petrou

    (University of Warwick)

  • Kamran Khan

    (University of Warwick)

  • Amadou Gaye

    (National Human Genome Research Institute)

  • Neena Modi

    (Imperial College)

Abstract

A new methodological framework for assessing agreement between cost-effectiveness endpoints generated using alternative sources of data on treatment costs and effects for trial-based economic evaluations is proposed. The framework can be used to validate cost-effectiveness endpoints generated from routine data sources when comparable data is available directly from trial case report forms or from another source. We illustrate application of the framework using data from a recent trial-based economic evaluation of the probiotic Bifidobacterium breve strain BBG administered to babies less than 31 weeks of gestation. Cost-effectiveness endpoints are compared using two sources of information; trial case report forms and data extracted from the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD), a clinical database created through collaborative efforts of UK neonatal services. Focusing on mean incremental net benefits at £30,000 per episode of sepsis averted, the study revealed no evidence of discrepancy between the data sources (two-sided p values >0.4), low probability estimates of miscoverage (ranging from 0.039 to 0.060) and concordance correlation coefficients greater than 0.86. We conclude that the NNRD could potentially serve as a reliable source of data for future trial-based economic evaluations of neonatal interventions. We also discuss the potential implications of increasing opportunity to utilize routinely available data for the conduct of trial-based economic evaluations.

Suggested Citation

  • Felix Achana & Stavros Petrou & Kamran Khan & Amadou Gaye & Neena Modi, 2018. "A methodological framework for assessing agreement between cost-effectiveness outcomes estimated using alternative sources of data on treatment costs and effects for trial-based economic evaluations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 75-86, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-017-0868-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0868-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-017-0868-8
    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/s10198-017-0868-8?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. Bernie J. O'Brien & Kirsten Gertsen & Andrew R. Willan & A. Faulkner, 2002. "Is there a kink in consumers' threshold value for cost‐effectiveness in health care?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(2), pages 175-180, March.
    2. Daniel Polsky & Henry A. Glick & Richard Willke & Kevin Schulman, 1997. "Confidence Intervals for Cost–Effectiveness Ratios: A Comparison of Four Methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(3), pages 243-252, May.
    3. Hema Mistry & Martin Buxton & Louise Longworth & Judy Chatwin & Robert Peveler, 2005. "Comparison of general practitioner records and patient self-report questionnaires for estimation of costs," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(3), pages 261-266, September.
    4. Jack Dowie, 2004. "Why cost‐effectiveness should trump (clinical) effectiveness: the ethical economics of the South West quadrant," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 453-459, May.
    5. Unknown, 2014. "Department Publications 2013," Publications Lists 206935, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    6. Sasiprapa Hiriote & Vernon M. Chinchilli, 2011. "Matrix-based Concordance Correlation Coefficient for Repeated Measures," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 1007-1016, September.
    7. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits: A New Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," NBER Technical Working Papers 0227, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Li, Runze & Chow, Mosuk, 2005. "Evaluation of reproducibility for paired functional data," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 81-101, March.
    9. Aaron A. Stinnett & John Mullahy, 1998. "Net Health Benefits," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(2_suppl), pages 68-80, April.
    10. Sarah Byford & Morven Leese & Martin Knapp & Helen Seivewright & Susan Cameron & Vanessa Jones & Kate Davidson & Peter Tyrer, 2007. "Comparison of alternative methods of collection of service use data for the economic evaluation of health care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(5), pages 531-536, May.
    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. Neil Hawkins & David A. Scott, 2011. "Reimbursement and value‐based pricing: stratified cost‐effectiveness analysis may not be the last word," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(6), pages 688-698, June.
    2. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    3. Elamin H. Elbasha, 2005. "Risk aversion and uncertainty in cost‐effectiveness analysis: the expected‐utility, moment‐generating function approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 457-470, May.
    4. Daniel F. Heitjan & Huiling Li, 2004. "Bayesian estimation of cost‐effectiveness: an importance‐sampling approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(2), pages 191-198, February.
    5. Bebu, Ionut & Luta, George & Mathew, Thomas & Kennedy, Paul A. & Agan, Brian K., 2016. "Parametric cost-effectiveness inference with skewed data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 210-220.
    6. Daniel F. Heitjan, 2000. "Fieller's method and net health benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 327-335, June.
    7. Simon Eckermann & Andrew R. Willan, 2009. "Globally optimal trial design for local decision making," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 203-216, February.
    8. Raymond C. W. Hutubessy & Louis W. Niessen & Rob F. Dijkstra & Ton F. Casparie & Frans F. Rutten, 2005. "Stochastic league tables: an application to diabetes interventions in the Netherlands," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 445-455, May.
    9. P. Sendi & A. Gafni & S. Birch, 2002. "Opportunity costs and uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(1), pages 23-31, January.
    10. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    11. A. E. Ades & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2006. "Evidence synthesis, parameter correlation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 373-381, April.
    12. Basu, Anirban & Jena, Anupam B. & Philipson, Tomas J., 2011. "The impact of comparative effectiveness research on health and health care spending," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 695-706, July.
    13. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Simon Eckermann & Tim Coelli, 2008. "Including quality attributes in a model of health care efficiency: A net benefit approach," CEPA Working Papers Series WP032008, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    15. Frank G. Sandmann & Julie V. Robotham & Sarah R. Deeny & W. John Edmunds & Mark Jit, 2018. "Estimating the opportunity costs of bed‐days," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 592-605, March.
    16. Clarke, Philip M. & Hayes, Alison J., 2009. "Measuring achievement: Changes in risk factors for cardiovascular disease in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 552-561, February.
    17. Niklas Zethraeus & Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Jönsson & Mickael Löthgren & Magnus Tambour, 2003. "Advantages of Using the Net-Benefit Approach for Analysing Uncertainty in Economic Evaluation Studies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 39-48, January.
    18. Moreno, Elías & Girón, F.J. & Vázquez-Polo, F.J. & Negrín, M.A., 2012. "Optimal healthcare decisions: The importance of the covariates in cost–effectiveness analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 512-522.
    19. Jordan Amdahl & Jose Diaz & Arati Sharma & Jinhee Park & David Chandiwana & Thomas E Delea, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    20. Martin Henriksson & Fredrik Lundgren & Per Carlsson, 2006. "Informing the efficient use of health care and health care research resources ‐ the case of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(12), pages 1311-1322, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agreement; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Economic evaluation; Routine data; Electronic health records;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I - Health, Education, and Welfare

    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:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s10198-017-0868-8. 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.