Structured headache services as the solution to the ill-health burden of headache. 2. Modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementation in Europe: methodology.
Cost-effectiveness
Global campaign against headache
Headache
Health economics
Healthy-life-years (HLYs)
Medication-overuse-headache (MOH)
Migraine
Quality improvement
Structured headache services
Tension-type-headache (TTH)
Journal
The journal of headache and pain
ISSN: 1129-2377
Titre abrégé: J Headache Pain
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100940562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Aug 2021
23 Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
09
06
2021
accepted:
31
07
2021
entrez:
24
8
2021
pubmed:
25
8
2021
medline:
26
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Health economic evaluations support health-care decision-making by providing information on the costs and consequences of health interventions. No universally accepted methodology exists for modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to close treatment gaps for headache disorders in countries of Europe (or elsewhere). Our aim here, within the European Brain Council's Value-of-Treatment project, was to develop headache-type-specific analytical models to be applied to implementation of structured headache services in Europe as the health-care solution to headache. We developed three headache-type-specific decision-analytical models using the WHO-CHOICE framework and adapted these for three European Region country settings (Luxembourg, Russia and Spain), diverse in geographical location, population size, income level and health-care systems and for which we had population-based data. Each model compared current (suboptimal) care vs target care (delivered in accordance with the structured headache services model). Epidemiological and economic data were drawn from studies conducted by the Global Campaign against Headache; data on efficacy of treatments were taken from published randomized controlled trials; assumptions on uptake of treatments, and those made for Healthy Life Year (HLY) calculations and target-care benefits, were agreed with experts. We made annual and 5-year cost estimates from health-care provider (main analyses) and societal (secondary analyses) perspectives (2020 figures, euros). The analytical models were successfully developed and applied to each country setting. Headache-related costs (including use of health-care resources and lost productivity) and health outcomes (HLYs) were mapped across populations. The same calculations were repeated for each alternative (current vs target care). Analyses of the differences in costs and health outcomes between alternatives and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are presented elsewhere. This study presents the first headache-type-specific analytical models to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing structured headache services in countries in the European Region. The models are robust, and can assist policy makers in allocating health budgets between interventions to maximize the health of populations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Health economic evaluations support health-care decision-making by providing information on the costs and consequences of health interventions. No universally accepted methodology exists for modelling effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to close treatment gaps for headache disorders in countries of Europe (or elsewhere). Our aim here, within the European Brain Council's Value-of-Treatment project, was to develop headache-type-specific analytical models to be applied to implementation of structured headache services in Europe as the health-care solution to headache.
METHODS
METHODS
We developed three headache-type-specific decision-analytical models using the WHO-CHOICE framework and adapted these for three European Region country settings (Luxembourg, Russia and Spain), diverse in geographical location, population size, income level and health-care systems and for which we had population-based data. Each model compared current (suboptimal) care vs target care (delivered in accordance with the structured headache services model). Epidemiological and economic data were drawn from studies conducted by the Global Campaign against Headache; data on efficacy of treatments were taken from published randomized controlled trials; assumptions on uptake of treatments, and those made for Healthy Life Year (HLY) calculations and target-care benefits, were agreed with experts. We made annual and 5-year cost estimates from health-care provider (main analyses) and societal (secondary analyses) perspectives (2020 figures, euros).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The analytical models were successfully developed and applied to each country setting. Headache-related costs (including use of health-care resources and lost productivity) and health outcomes (HLYs) were mapped across populations. The same calculations were repeated for each alternative (current vs target care). Analyses of the differences in costs and health outcomes between alternatives and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are presented elsewhere.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study presents the first headache-type-specific analytical models to evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implementing structured headache services in countries in the European Region. The models are robust, and can assist policy makers in allocating health budgets between interventions to maximize the health of populations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34425753
doi: 10.1186/s10194-021-01310-x
pii: 10.1186/s10194-021-01310-x
pmc: PMC8383423
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
99Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Headache Pain. 2020 Dec 2;21(1):137
pubmed: 33267788
J Headache Pain. 2015 Feb 18;16:15
pubmed: 25869942
Clin Ther. 2009 Mar;31(3):542-59
pubmed: 19393844
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Apr 14;(4):CD008041
pubmed: 20393963
Neurol Sci. 2018 Jun;39(Suppl 1):115-116
pubmed: 29904860
Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1211-1259
pubmed: 28919117
Eur J Neurol. 2014 May;21(5):758-65
pubmed: 24520863
J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2009;23(4):396-408
pubmed: 19947842
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;(2):CD008615
pubmed: 22336849
Eur J Neurol. 2012 May;19(5):703-11
pubmed: 22136117
J Headache Pain. 2021 Aug 11;22(1):90
pubmed: 34380429
J Headache Pain. 2011 Oct;12(5):541-9
pubmed: 21660430
Cephalalgia. 2007 Mar;27(3):193-210
pubmed: 17381554
Cephalalgia. 2012 Apr;32(5):373-81
pubmed: 22395797
Lancet. 2018 Nov 10;392(10159):1789-1858
pubmed: 30496104
J Headache Pain. 2018 Feb 1;19(1):10
pubmed: 29392600
J Headache Pain. 2014 May 21;15:31
pubmed: 24884549
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011 Oct;21(10):718-79
pubmed: 21924589
J Headache Pain. 2019 May 21;20(1):57
pubmed: 31113373
J Headache Pain. 2021 Jul 01;22(1):63
pubmed: 34210258
J Headache Pain. 2018 Feb 21;19(1):17
pubmed: 29468450
J Headache Pain. 2021 Jul 21;22(1):78
pubmed: 34289806
Neuron. 2014 Jun 18;82(6):1205-8
pubmed: 24945765
Lancet Neurol. 2018 Nov;17(11):954-976
pubmed: 30353868
J Headache Pain. 2016;17:9
pubmed: 26879832
Lancet. 2020 Oct 17;396(10258):1204-1222
pubmed: 33069326
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jun 16;(6):CD011889
pubmed: 27306653