IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v9y2000i4p337-351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence‐based medicine and health economics: a case study of end stage renal disease

Author

Listed:
  • Luke Vale
  • Cam Donaldson
  • Conal Daly
  • Marion Campbell
  • June Cody
  • Adrian Grant
  • Izhar Khan
  • Paul Lawrence
  • Shiela Wallace
  • Alison Macleod

Abstract

This paper explores the potential for use of an economic evaluation framework alongside systematic reviews. Clinical issues in dialysis therapy for end stage renal disease are used as case studies. The effectiveness data required were obtained from a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Resource use and cost data were obtained from three sources; the identified randomized controlled trials, a separate review of observational studies and primary data collection. The results of the case studies show that, although simple economic evaluations were possible, issues arose, such as how transferable results are between settings and how appropriate it is to focus on the average patient. The interface between economic evaluation and systematic reviews needs to be further developed in order to ensure that the best available evidence can be used to inform future policy and research. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Luke Vale & Cam Donaldson & Conal Daly & Marion Campbell & June Cody & Adrian Grant & Izhar Khan & Paul Lawrence & Shiela Wallace & Alison Macleod, 2000. "Evidence‐based medicine and health economics: a case study of end stage renal disease," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(4), pages 337-351, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:9:y:2000:i:4:p:337-351
    DOI: 10.1002/1099-1050(200006)9:4<337::AID-HEC518>3.0.CO;2-O
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1050(200006)9:43.0.CO;2-O
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/1099-1050(200006)9:4<337::AID-HEC518>3.0.CO;2-O?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karen Gerard & Gavin Mooney, 1993. "Qaly league tables: Handle with care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 2(1), pages 59-64, April.
    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. John Hutton, 2012. "‘Health Economics’ and the evolution of economic evaluation of health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 13-18, January.
    2. Virginia Wiseman & Craig Mitton & Mary M. Doyle‐Waters & Tom Drake & Lesong Conteh & Anthony T. Newall & Obinna Onwujekwe & Stephen Jan, 2016. "Using Economic Evidence to Set Healthcare Priorities in Low‐Income and Lower‐Middle‐Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Methodological Frameworks," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 140-161, February.
    3. Craig, Neil & Parkin, David & Gerard, Karen, 1995. "Clearing the fog on the Tyne: programme budgeting in Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 107-125, August.
    4. Salkeld, Glenn & Davey, Peter & Arnolda, Gaston, 1995. "A critical review of health-related economic evaluations in Australia: implications for health policy," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 111-125, February.
    5. Bernard Berg & Werner Brouwer & Marc Koopmanschap, 2004. "Economic valuation of informal care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(1), pages 36-45, February.
    6. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
    7. Nancy Thiry & Philippe Beutels & Pierre Damme & Eddy Doorslaer, 2003. "Economic Evaluations of Varicella Vaccination Programmes," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 13-38, January.
    8. Shackley, Phil & Cairns, John, 1996. "Evaluating the benefits of antenatal screening: an alternative approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 103-115, May.
    9. V. Srinivasan & David E. Bloom & Alex Khoury, 2022. "Forecasting the Incremental Value to Society Created by a Class of New Prescription Drugs: A Proposed Methodology and Its Application to Treating Chronic Hepatitis C in India," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 371-381, May.
    10. David K. Whynes & Aileen R. Neilson & Andrew R. Walker & Jack D. Hardcastle, 1998. "Faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer: is it cost‐effective?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(1), pages 21-29, February.
    11. Marieke Krol & Jocé Papenburg & Marc Koopmanschap & Werner Brouwer, 2011. "Do Productivity Costs Matter?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(7), pages 601-619, July.
    12. Baltussen, Rob & Ament, Andre & Leidl, Reiner, 1996. "Making cost assessments based on RCTs more useful to decision-makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 163-183, September.
    13. Marc A. Koopmanschap & Frans F. H. Rutten, 1994. "The impact of indirect costs on outcomes of health care programs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 3(6), pages 385-393, November.
    14. Gerard, Karen & Smoker, Irenie & Seymour, Janelle, 1999. "Raising the quality of cost-utility analyses: lessons learnt and still to learn," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 217-238, March.
    15. Pieter H. M. van Baal & Talitha L. Feenstra & Rudolf T. Hoogenveen & G. Ardine de Wit & Werner B. F. Brouwer, 2007. "Unrelated medical care in life years gained and the cost utility of primary prevention: in search of a ‘perfect’ cost–utility ratio," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(4), pages 421-433, April.
    16. Brouwer, W. B. F. & Koopmanschap, M. A. & Rutten, F. F. H., 1999. "Productivity losses without absence: measurement validation and empirical evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 13-27, July.
    17. Lindholm, Lars & Hallgren, C. -G. & Boman, Kurt & Markgren, Kenth & Weinehall, Lars & Ogren, J. -E., 1999. "Cost-effectiveness analysis with defined budget: how to distribute resources for the prevention of cardiovascular disease?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 155-170, August.
    18. Victoria K. Brennan & Georgina Jones & Stephen Radley & Simon Dixon, 2021. "Incorporating Process Utility into Cost-Effectiveness Analysis via a Bolt-On Domain to the SF-6D: An Exploratory Study," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 747-756, September.
    19. Tosin Lambe & Emma Frew & Natalie J. Ives & Rebecca L. Woolley & Carole Cummins & Elizabeth A. Brettell & Emma N. Barsoum & Nicholas J. A. Webb, 2018. "Mapping the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™) Generic Core Scales onto the Child Health Utility Index–9 Dimension (CHU-9D) Score for Economic Evaluation in Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 451-465, April.
    20. Calcott, Paul, 2000. "Health care evaluation, utilitarianism and distortionary taxes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 719-730, September.

    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:wly:hlthec:v:9:y:2000:i:4:p:337-351. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    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.