Adherence to the iDSI reference case among published cost-per-DALY averted studies.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
19
09
2018
accepted:
28
03
2019
entrez:
3
5
2019
pubmed:
3
5
2019
medline:
14
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The iDSI reference case, originally published in 2014, aims to improve the quality and comparability of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA). This study assesses whether the development of the guideline is associated with an improvement in methodological and reporting practices for CEAs using disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center Global Health CEA Registry to identify cost-per-DALY averted studies published from 2011 to 2017. Among each of 11 principles in the iDSI reference case, we translated all methodological specifications and reporting standards into a series of binary questions (satisfied or not satisfied) and awarded articles one point for each item satisfied. We then calculated methodological and reporting adherence scores separately as a percentage of total possible points, measured as normalized adherence score (0% = no adherence; 100% = full adherence). Using the year 2014 as the dissemination period, we conducted a pre-post analysis. We also conducted sensitivity analyses using: 1) optional criteria in scoring, 2) alternate dissemination period (2014-2015), and 3) alternative comparator classification. Articles averaged 60% adherence to methodological specifications and 74% adherence to reporting standards. While methodological adherence scores did not significantly improve (59% pre-2014 vs. 60% post-2014, p = 0.53), reporting adherence scores increased slightly over time (72% pre-2014 vs. 75% post-2014, p<0.01). Overall, reporting adherence scores exceeded methodological adherence scores (74% vs. 60%, p<0.001). Articles seldom addressed budget impact (9% reporting, 10% methodological) or equity (7% reporting, 7% methodological). The iDSI reference case has substantial potential to serve as a useful resource for researchers and policy-makers in global health settings, but greater effort to promote adherence and awareness is needed to achieve its potential.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The iDSI reference case, originally published in 2014, aims to improve the quality and comparability of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA). This study assesses whether the development of the guideline is associated with an improvement in methodological and reporting practices for CEAs using disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs).
METHODS
We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center Global Health CEA Registry to identify cost-per-DALY averted studies published from 2011 to 2017. Among each of 11 principles in the iDSI reference case, we translated all methodological specifications and reporting standards into a series of binary questions (satisfied or not satisfied) and awarded articles one point for each item satisfied. We then calculated methodological and reporting adherence scores separately as a percentage of total possible points, measured as normalized adherence score (0% = no adherence; 100% = full adherence). Using the year 2014 as the dissemination period, we conducted a pre-post analysis. We also conducted sensitivity analyses using: 1) optional criteria in scoring, 2) alternate dissemination period (2014-2015), and 3) alternative comparator classification.
RESULTS
Articles averaged 60% adherence to methodological specifications and 74% adherence to reporting standards. While methodological adherence scores did not significantly improve (59% pre-2014 vs. 60% post-2014, p = 0.53), reporting adherence scores increased slightly over time (72% pre-2014 vs. 75% post-2014, p<0.01). Overall, reporting adherence scores exceeded methodological adherence scores (74% vs. 60%, p<0.001). Articles seldom addressed budget impact (9% reporting, 10% methodological) or equity (7% reporting, 7% methodological).
CONCLUSIONS
The iDSI reference case has substantial potential to serve as a useful resource for researchers and policy-makers in global health settings, but greater effort to promote adherence and awareness is needed to achieve its potential.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31042714
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205633
pii: PONE-D-18-27374
pmc: PMC6493721
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0205633Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R015600/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Health Econ. 2000 Apr;9(3):235-51
pubmed: 10790702
JAMA. 2016 Sep 13;316(10):1093-103
pubmed: 27623463
JAMA. 1996 Oct 16;276(15):1253-8
pubmed: 8849754
Value Health. 2013 Mar-Apr;16(2):231-50
pubmed: 23538175
Health Econ. 2016 Feb;25 Suppl 1:29-41
pubmed: 26775571
BMJ. 2004 Jul 24;329(7459):224-7
pubmed: 15271836
J Med Assoc Thai. 2008 Jun;91 Suppl 2:S11-5
pubmed: 19253483
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Glob Heart. 2012 Mar;7(1):13-34
pubmed: 25691165
BMC Med. 2014 Oct 30;12:216
pubmed: 25358459
Bull World Health Organ. 2016 Jun 1;94(6):462-7
pubmed: 27274598
JAMA. 1996 Oct 9;276(14):1172-7
pubmed: 8827972
Value Health Reg Issues. 2012 May;1(1):118-120
pubmed: 29702818
Value Health. 2016 Dec;19(8):921-928
pubmed: 27987641
BMC Public Health. 2005 Dec 12;5:130
pubmed: 16343345
Health Technol Assess. 2004 Dec;8(49):iii-iv, 1-192
pubmed: 15544708
PLoS One. 2015 May 07;10(5):e0123853
pubmed: 25950443
Gates Open Res. 2018 Jan 18;2:5
pubmed: 29431169
Health Econ. 2016 Feb;25 Suppl 1:6-8
pubmed: 26804358