IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v36y2018i1d10.1007_s40273-017-0572-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Costs Investigated: A Study Into the Budgets of Dutch Publicly Funded Drug-Related Research

Author

Listed:
  • Thea Asselt

    (University of Groningen
    University of Groningen)

  • Bram Ramaekers

    (Maastricht University)

  • Isaac Corro Ramos

    (Erasmus University)

  • Manuela Joore

    (Maastricht University)

  • Maiwenn Al

    (Erasmus University)

  • Ivonne Lesman-Leegte

    (University of Groningen)

  • Maarten Postma

    (University of Groningen
    University of Groningen)

  • Pepijn Vemer

    (University of Groningen
    University of Groningen)

  • Talitha Feenstra

    (University of Groningen
    Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, RIVM)

Abstract

Background The costs of performing research are an important input in value of information (VOI) analyses but are difficult to assess. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the costs of research, serving two purposes: (1) estimating research costs for use in VOI analyses; and (2) developing a costing tool to support reviewers of grant proposals in assessing whether the proposed budget is realistic. Methods For granted study proposals from the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), type of study, potential cost drivers, proposed budget, and general characteristics were extracted. Regression analysis was conducted in an attempt to generate a ‘predicted budget’ for certain combinations of cost drivers, for implementation in the costing tool. Results Of 133 drug-related research grant proposals, 74 were included for complete data extraction. Because an association between cost drivers and budgets was not confirmed, we could not generate a predicted budget based on regression analysis, but only historic reference budgets given certain study characteristics. The costing tool was designed accordingly, i.e. with given selection criteria the tool returns the range of budgets in comparable studies. This range can be used in VOI analysis to estimate whether the expected net benefit of sampling will be positive to decide upon the net value of future research. Conclusion The absence of association between study characteristics and budgets may indicate inconsistencies in the budgeting or granting process. Nonetheless, the tool generates useful information on historical budgets, and the option to formally relate VOI to budgets. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt at creating such a tool, which can be complemented with new studies being granted, enlarging the underlying database and keeping estimates up to date.

Suggested Citation

  • Thea Asselt & Bram Ramaekers & Isaac Corro Ramos & Manuela Joore & Maiwenn Al & Ivonne Lesman-Leegte & Maarten Postma & Pepijn Vemer & Talitha Feenstra, 2018. "Research Costs Investigated: A Study Into the Budgets of Dutch Publicly Funded Drug-Related Research," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 105-113, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0572-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0572-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-017-0572-7
    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/s40273-017-0572-7?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. Karl Claxton & John Posnett, "undated". "An Economic Approach to Clinical Trial Design and Research Priority Setting," Discussion Papers 96/19, Department of Economics, University of York.
    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. Peter Bacchetti & Charles E. McCulloch & Mark R. Segal, 2008. "Simple, Defensible Sample Sizes Based on Cost Efficiency," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(2), pages 577-585, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Martin E. Backhouse, 1998. "An investment appraisal approach to clinical trial design," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 605-619, November.
    4. Rachael DiSantostefano & Andrea Biddle & John Lavelle, 2006. "The Long-Term Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 171-191, February.
    5. Jon Karnon & A. Brennan & J. Chilcott, 2003. "Commentary on Coyle et al., "The assessment of the economic return from controlled clinical trials"," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 4(3), pages 239-240, September.
    6. 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.
    7. Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Chris McCabe & Andrew Briggs & Ron Akehurst & Martin Buxton & John Brazier & Tony O'Hagan, 2005. "Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(4), pages 339-347, April.
    8. Mathyn Vervaart & Mark Strong & Karl P. Claxton & Nicky J. Welton & Torbjørn Wisløff & Eline Aas, 2022. "An Efficient Method for Computing Expected Value of Sample Information for Survival Data from an Ongoing Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 612-625, July.
    9. 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.
    10. Rachael L. Fleurence, 2007. "Setting priorities for research: a practical application of ‘payback’ and expected value of information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(12), pages 1345-1357, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Neil Hawkins & Mark Sculpher & David Epstein, 2005. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatments for Chronic Disease: Using R to Incorporate Time Dependency of Treatment Response," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(5), pages 511-519, September.
    13. A. E. Ades & A. J. Sutton, 2006. "Multiparameter evidence synthesis in epidemiology and medical decision‐making: current approaches," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 169(1), pages 5-35, January.
    14. Meltzer, David, 2001. "Addressing uncertainty in medical cost-effectiveness analysis: Implications of expected utility maximization for methods to perform sensitivity analysis and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis to s," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 109-129, January.
    15. Lazaros Andronis & Lucinda J. Billingham & Stirling Bryan & Nicholas D. James & Pelham M. Barton, 2016. "A Practical Application of Value of Information and Prospective Payback of Research to Prioritize Evaluative Research," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(3), pages 321-334, April.
    16. Mark J. Sculpher & Karl Claxton & Mike Drummond & Chris McCabe, 2006. "Whither trial‐based economic evaluation for health care decision making?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(7), pages 677-687, July.
    17. Michael Fairley & Lauren E. Cipriano & Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert, 2020. "Optimal Allocation of Research Funds under a Budget Constraint," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 797-814, August.
    18. J. Brown & N. J. Welton & C. Bankhead & S. H. Richards & L. Roberts & C. Tydeman & T. J. Peters, 2006. "A Bayesian approach to analysing the cost‐effectiveness of two primary care interventions aimed at improving attendance for breast screening," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 435-445, May.
    19. Afschin Gandjour, 2011. "Prioritizing Comparative Effectiveness Research," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(7), pages 555-561, July.
    20. A C Bouman & A J ten Cate-Hoek & B L T Ramaekers & M A Joore, 2015. "Sample Size Estimation for Non-Inferiority Trials: Frequentist Approach versus Decision Theory Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-14, June.

    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:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0572-7. 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.