IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipt/iptwpa/jrc91162.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (MAFEIP) First report on outcome indicators

Author

Listed:

Abstract

As the initial Monitoring Framework may not be fully relevant for the overarching objective of the EIP on AHA and the Triple Win, either because the Action Groups commitments cannot use specific indicators or because some of the indicators initially thought of may not be best suited for measuring the impacts on the EIP on AHA higher objectives, the aim of this report is to suggest a smaller set of key indicators which may allow efficient monitoring of the impact of the EIP on AHA on the Triple Win and the overarching objective, based on the combined analysis of the above exercises. Such a set of indicators ought to be general enough to be widely applicable to commitments within each Action Group of the EIP, but also specific enough to be able to capture the impact of interventions delivered within each of these Action Groups. Finally, the set of indicators chosen should support modelling the link between EIP on AHA outcomes and the Triple Win and the headline target of two additional healthy life years to the average healthy life span of European citizens. This report therefore presents the results of the analysis of the above mentioned evidence whose objective was to assess the likelihood for each outcome indicator identified to be widely applicable across Action Groups and its fitness for the purpose of measuring the overall EIP on AHA impact. The picture obtained from the data collected from the field (i.e. Reference Sites and Action Groups' good practices) has been further refined by using results from the above mentioned scientific literature review.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabienne Abadie & Christian Boehler & Maria Lluch & Ramon Sabes-Figuera, 2014. "Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (MAFEIP) First report on outcome indicators," JRC Research Reports JRC91162, Joint Research Centre.
    • Handle: RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc91162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC91162
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Brazier, John & Roberts, Jennifer & Deverill, Mark, 2002. "The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 271-292, March.
    3. Marengoni, A. & Winblad, B. & Karp, A. & Fratiglioni, L., 2008. "Prevalence of chronic diseases and multimorbidity among the elderly population in Sweden," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 98(7), pages 1198-1200.
    4. Böckerman, Petri & Johansson, Edvard & Saarni, Samuli I., 2011. "Do established health-related quality-of-life measures adequately capture the impact of chronic conditions on subjective well-being?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(1), pages 91-95, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christian Boehler & Fabienne Abadie, 2016. "Monitoring and Assessment Framework for the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (MAFEIP) - Gap analysis," JRC Research Reports JRC101550, Joint Research Centre.

    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. Ian M. McCarthy, 2015. "Putting the Patient in Patient Reported Outcomes: A Robust Methodology for Health Outcomes Assessment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(12), pages 1588-1603, December.
    2. Roisin Adams & Cathal Walsh & Douglas Veale & Barry Bresnihan & Oliver FitzGerald & Michael Barry, 2010. "Understanding the Relationship between the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HAQ and Disease Activity in Inflammatory Arthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 477-487, June.
    3. Lisa R. Ulrich & Juliana J. Petersen & Karola Mergenthal & Andrea Berghold & Gudrun Pregartner & Rolf Holle & Andrea Siebenhofer, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of case management for optimized antithrombotic treatment in German general practices compared to usual care – results from the PICANT trial," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Garry R. Barton & Tracey H. Sach & Anthony J. Avery & Claire Jenkinson & Michael Doherty & David K. Whynes & Kenneth R. Muir, 2008. "A comparison of the performance of the EQ‐5D and SF‐6D for individuals aged ≥ 45 years," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(7), pages 815-832, July.
    5. John Brazier & Donna Rowen & Yaling Yang & Aki Tsuchiya, 2012. "Comparison of health state utility values derived using time trade-off, rank and discrete choice data anchored on the full health-dead scale," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 575-587, October.
    6. Lisa Prosser & James Hammitt & Ron Keren, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Use in Cost-Utility and Cost-Benefit Analyses of Interventions in Children," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 713-726, September.
    7. Samer Kharroubi, 2015. "A Comparison of Japan and UK SF-6D Health-State Valuations Using a Non-Parametric Bayesian Method," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 409-420, August.
    8. Eva Rodríguez Míguez & José María Abellán Perpiñán & José Carlos Álvarez Villamarín & José Manuel González Martínez & Antonio Rodríguez Sampayo, 2013. "Development of a new preference-based instrument to measure dependency," Working Papers 1301, Universidade de Vigo, Departamento de Economía Aplicada.
    9. Oscar Andrés Espinosa Acuna, 2020. "Clasificación de estados de salud y metodologías de valoración de preferencias para el cálculo de AVAC: una revisión de literatura," Ensayos de Economía 19137, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Medellín.
    10. Silvia Garrido & Ildefonso Méndez & José-María Abellán, 2013. "Analysing the Simultaneous Relationship Between Life Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 1813-1838, December.
    11. Søgaard, Rikke & Kløjgaard, Mirja Elisabeth & Olsen, Jens, 2010. "Methods for cost-effectiveness evaluation alongside trials in spine surgery," DaCHE discussion papers 2010:5, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    12. Samer A. Kharroubi & Donna Rowen, 2019. "Valuation of preference-based measures: can existing preference data be used to select a smaller sample of health states?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(2), pages 245-255, March.
    13. Elizabeth Goodwin & Colin Green, 2016. "A Systematic Review of the Literature on the Development of Condition-Specific Preference-Based Measures of Health," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 161-183, April.
    14. de Bruin, Simone R. & Heijink, Richard & Lemmens, Lidwien C. & Struijs, Jeroen N. & Baan, Caroline A., 2011. "Impact of disease management programs on healthcare expenditures for patients with diabetes, depression, heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 105-121, July.
    15. Chen-Wei Pan & Hong-Peng Sun & Hui-Jun Zhou & Qinghua Ma & Yong Xu & Nan Luo & Pei Wang, 2016. "Valuing Health-Related Quality of Life in Type 2 Diabetes Patients in China," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 234-241, February.
    16. Makai, Peter & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Koopmanschap, Marc A. & Stolk, Elly A. & Nieboer, Anna P., 2014. "Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 83-93.
    17. Sun Sun & Nan Luo & Erik Stenberg & Lars Lindholm & Klas-Göran Sahlén & Karl A. Franklin & Yang Cao, 2022. "Sequential Multiple Imputation for Real-World Health-Related Quality of Life Missing Data after Bariatric Surgery," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-16, August.
    18. Rowen, D & Brazier, J & Tsuchiya, A & Hernández, M & Ibbotson, R, 2009. "The simultaneous valuation of states from multiple instruments using ranking and VAS data: methods and preliminary results," MPRA Paper 29841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli, 2010. "A Review and Critique of Studies Reporting Utility Values for Schizophrenia-Related Health States," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(12), pages 1109-1121, December.
    20. David Feeny, 2012. "The Multi-attribute Utility Approach to Assessing Health-related Quality of Life," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 36, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    EIP; Active and Healthy Ageing; EIP on AHA; indicators; monitoring; framework;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ipt:iptwpa:jrc91162. 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: Publication Officer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipjrces.html .

    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.