Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review
With rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2017-08, Vol.12 (8), p.e0183116-e0183116 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0183116 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | e0183116 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 12 |
creator | Mayer, Susanne Kiss, Noemi Łaszewska, Agata Simon, Judit |
description | With rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for decision-making. The aim of this review is to assess the availability and consistency of costing evidence that could be used for decision-making in Austria. It describes systematically the current economic evaluation and costing studies landscape focusing on the applied costing methods and their reporting standards. Findings are discussed in terms of their likely impacts on evidence-based decision-making and potential suggestions for areas of development.
A systematic literature review of English and German language peer-reviewed as well as grey literature (2004-2015) was conducted to identify Austrian economic analyses. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SSCI, EconLit, NHS EED and Scopus were searched. Publication and study characteristics, costing methods, reporting standards and valuation sources were systematically synthesised and assessed.
A total of 93 studies were included. 87% were journal articles, 13% were reports. 41% of all studies were full economic evaluations, mostly cost-effectiveness analyses. Based on relevant standards the most commonly observed limitations were that 60% of the studies did not clearly state an analytical perspective, 25% of the studies did not provide the year of costing, 27% did not comprehensively list all valuation sources, and 38% did not report all applied unit costs.
There are substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods and reporting standards in economic analyses in Austria, which may contribute to a low acceptance and lack of interest in economic evaluation-informed decision making. To improve comparability and quality of future studies, national costing guidelines should be updated with more specific methodological guidance and a national reference cost library should be set up to allow harmonisation of valuation methods. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0183116 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1928765629</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A500574586</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_c12c9ded8a2c454097db2cc465925848</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A500574586</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9a07b7653ddfe9b68a33f4df26e62016f729685ba557efba240e512c6ddc680d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl2P1CAUhhujcdfVf2C0iYnRixmBFgpemEwmfkyyyRq_bgmF0xnGtoxAV_ffy-x0N1OzF8IFBJ7znsPhzbKnGM1xUeE3Wzf4XrXznethjjAvMGb3slMsCjJjBBX3j_Yn2aMQtgjRgjP2MDshnCNWEX6afV66EG2_zuHSGug15I3z-QZUGze5Vh5yA9oG6_pZp37uQdvniyFEb9XbfJGHqxChU9Hq3CcJ-P04e9CoNsCTcT3Lvn94_235aXZ-8XG1XJzPNBMkzoRCVV0xWhjTgKgZV0XRlKYhDFLBmDUVEYzTWlFaQVMrUiKgmGhmjGYcmeIse37Q3bUuyLEZQWJBeJJlRCRidSCMU1u587ZT_ko6ZeX1gfNrqXwqvAWpk7IwYLgiuqQlEpWpidYlo4JQXvKk9W7MNtQdGA199KqdiE5veruRa3cpaRqM7Yt5NQp492uAEGVng4a2VT244bpugRHHgib0xT_o3a8bqbVKD7B941JevReVC5p-uiopZ4ma30GlaaCzOjmnsel8EvB6EpCYCH_iWg0hyNXXL__PXvyYsi-P2IO_gmuHmJwVpmB5ALV3IXhobpuMkdwb_6Ybcm98ORo_hT07_qDboBunF38BBrL83Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1928765629</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review</title><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Mayer, Susanne ; Kiss, Noemi ; Łaszewska, Agata ; Simon, Judit</creator><creatorcontrib>Mayer, Susanne ; Kiss, Noemi ; Łaszewska, Agata ; Simon, Judit</creatorcontrib><description>With rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for decision-making. The aim of this review is to assess the availability and consistency of costing evidence that could be used for decision-making in Austria. It describes systematically the current economic evaluation and costing studies landscape focusing on the applied costing methods and their reporting standards. Findings are discussed in terms of their likely impacts on evidence-based decision-making and potential suggestions for areas of development.
A systematic literature review of English and German language peer-reviewed as well as grey literature (2004-2015) was conducted to identify Austrian economic analyses. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SSCI, EconLit, NHS EED and Scopus were searched. Publication and study characteristics, costing methods, reporting standards and valuation sources were systematically synthesised and assessed.
A total of 93 studies were included. 87% were journal articles, 13% were reports. 41% of all studies were full economic evaluations, mostly cost-effectiveness analyses. Based on relevant standards the most commonly observed limitations were that 60% of the studies did not clearly state an analytical perspective, 25% of the studies did not provide the year of costing, 27% did not comprehensively list all valuation sources, and 38% did not report all applied unit costs.
There are substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods and reporting standards in economic analyses in Austria, which may contribute to a low acceptance and lack of interest in economic evaluation-informed decision making. To improve comparability and quality of future studies, national costing guidelines should be updated with more specific methodological guidance and a national reference cost library should be set up to allow harmonisation of valuation methods.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183116</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28806728</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Acceptance ; Analysis ; Austria ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Boltzmann, Ludwig Eduard (1844-1906) ; Cost analysis ; Decision Making ; Demand ; Economic analysis ; Economic aspects ; Economics ; Evaluation ; Health care ; Health Care Costs ; Health care industry ; Health care policy ; Health insurance ; Humans ; Libraries ; Literature reviews ; Management ; Medical care ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; People and Places ; Quality management ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Research Report ; Resource allocation ; Reviews ; Social Sciences ; Standardization</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2017-08, Vol.12 (8), p.e0183116-e0183116</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2017 Mayer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2017 Mayer et al 2017 Mayer et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9a07b7653ddfe9b68a33f4df26e62016f729685ba557efba240e512c6ddc680d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9a07b7653ddfe9b68a33f4df26e62016f729685ba557efba240e512c6ddc680d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-9279-8627</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5555669/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5555669/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79343,79344</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28806728$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mayer, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kiss, Noemi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Łaszewska, Agata</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Judit</creatorcontrib><title>Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>With rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for decision-making. The aim of this review is to assess the availability and consistency of costing evidence that could be used for decision-making in Austria. It describes systematically the current economic evaluation and costing studies landscape focusing on the applied costing methods and their reporting standards. Findings are discussed in terms of their likely impacts on evidence-based decision-making and potential suggestions for areas of development.
A systematic literature review of English and German language peer-reviewed as well as grey literature (2004-2015) was conducted to identify Austrian economic analyses. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SSCI, EconLit, NHS EED and Scopus were searched. Publication and study characteristics, costing methods, reporting standards and valuation sources were systematically synthesised and assessed.
A total of 93 studies were included. 87% were journal articles, 13% were reports. 41% of all studies were full economic evaluations, mostly cost-effectiveness analyses. Based on relevant standards the most commonly observed limitations were that 60% of the studies did not clearly state an analytical perspective, 25% of the studies did not provide the year of costing, 27% did not comprehensively list all valuation sources, and 38% did not report all applied unit costs.
There are substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods and reporting standards in economic analyses in Austria, which may contribute to a low acceptance and lack of interest in economic evaluation-informed decision making. To improve comparability and quality of future studies, national costing guidelines should be updated with more specific methodological guidance and a national reference cost library should be set up to allow harmonisation of valuation methods.</description><subject>Acceptance</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Austria</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Boltzmann, Ludwig Eduard (1844-1906)</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Demand</subject><subject>Economic analysis</subject><subject>Economic aspects</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health Care Costs</subject><subject>Health care industry</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>Health insurance</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Libraries</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Medical care</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Quality management</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Research Report</subject><subject>Resource allocation</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Standardization</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl2P1CAUhhujcdfVf2C0iYnRixmBFgpemEwmfkyyyRq_bgmF0xnGtoxAV_ffy-x0N1OzF8IFBJ7znsPhzbKnGM1xUeE3Wzf4XrXznethjjAvMGb3slMsCjJjBBX3j_Yn2aMQtgjRgjP2MDshnCNWEX6afV66EG2_zuHSGug15I3z-QZUGze5Vh5yA9oG6_pZp37uQdvniyFEb9XbfJGHqxChU9Hq3CcJ-P04e9CoNsCTcT3Lvn94_235aXZ-8XG1XJzPNBMkzoRCVV0xWhjTgKgZV0XRlKYhDFLBmDUVEYzTWlFaQVMrUiKgmGhmjGYcmeIse37Q3bUuyLEZQWJBeJJlRCRidSCMU1u587ZT_ko6ZeX1gfNrqXwqvAWpk7IwYLgiuqQlEpWpidYlo4JQXvKk9W7MNtQdGA199KqdiE5veruRa3cpaRqM7Yt5NQp492uAEGVng4a2VT244bpugRHHgib0xT_o3a8bqbVKD7B941JevReVC5p-uiopZ4ma30GlaaCzOjmnsel8EvB6EpCYCH_iWg0hyNXXL__PXvyYsi-P2IO_gmuHmJwVpmB5ALV3IXhobpuMkdwb_6Ybcm98ORo_hT07_qDboBunF38BBrL83Q</recordid><startdate>20170814</startdate><enddate>20170814</enddate><creator>Mayer, Susanne</creator><creator>Kiss, Noemi</creator><creator>Łaszewska, Agata</creator><creator>Simon, Judit</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9279-8627</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170814</creationdate><title>Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review</title><author>Mayer, Susanne ; Kiss, Noemi ; Łaszewska, Agata ; Simon, Judit</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9a07b7653ddfe9b68a33f4df26e62016f729685ba557efba240e512c6ddc680d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Acceptance</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Austria</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Boltzmann, Ludwig Eduard (1844-1906)</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Demand</topic><topic>Economic analysis</topic><topic>Economic aspects</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health Care Costs</topic><topic>Health care industry</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>Health insurance</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Libraries</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Medical care</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Quality management</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Research Report</topic><topic>Resource allocation</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Standardization</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mayer, Susanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kiss, Noemi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Łaszewska, Agata</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Judit</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mayer, Susanne</au><au>Kiss, Noemi</au><au>Łaszewska, Agata</au><au>Simon, Judit</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2017-08-14</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>e0183116</spage><epage>e0183116</epage><pages>e0183116-e0183116</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>With rising healthcare costs comes an increasing demand for evidence-informed resource allocation using economic evaluations worldwide. Furthermore, standardization of costing and reporting methods both at international and national levels are imperative to make economic evaluations a valid tool for decision-making. The aim of this review is to assess the availability and consistency of costing evidence that could be used for decision-making in Austria. It describes systematically the current economic evaluation and costing studies landscape focusing on the applied costing methods and their reporting standards. Findings are discussed in terms of their likely impacts on evidence-based decision-making and potential suggestions for areas of development.
A systematic literature review of English and German language peer-reviewed as well as grey literature (2004-2015) was conducted to identify Austrian economic analyses. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, SSCI, EconLit, NHS EED and Scopus were searched. Publication and study characteristics, costing methods, reporting standards and valuation sources were systematically synthesised and assessed.
A total of 93 studies were included. 87% were journal articles, 13% were reports. 41% of all studies were full economic evaluations, mostly cost-effectiveness analyses. Based on relevant standards the most commonly observed limitations were that 60% of the studies did not clearly state an analytical perspective, 25% of the studies did not provide the year of costing, 27% did not comprehensively list all valuation sources, and 38% did not report all applied unit costs.
There are substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods and reporting standards in economic analyses in Austria, which may contribute to a low acceptance and lack of interest in economic evaluation-informed decision making. To improve comparability and quality of future studies, national costing guidelines should be updated with more specific methodological guidance and a national reference cost library should be set up to allow harmonisation of valuation methods.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>28806728</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0183116</doi><tpages>e0183116</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9279-8627</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2017-08, Vol.12 (8), p.e0183116-e0183116 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1928765629 |
source | Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Acceptance Analysis Austria Biology and Life Sciences Boltzmann, Ludwig Eduard (1844-1906) Cost analysis Decision Making Demand Economic analysis Economic aspects Economics Evaluation Health care Health Care Costs Health care industry Health care policy Health insurance Humans Libraries Literature reviews Management Medical care Medicine and Health Sciences People and Places Quality management Research and Analysis Methods Research Report Resource allocation Reviews Social Sciences Standardization |
title | Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T01%3A42%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Costing%20evidence%20for%20health%20care%20decision-making%20in%20Austria:%20A%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Mayer,%20Susanne&rft.date=2017-08-14&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=e0183116&rft.epage=e0183116&rft.pages=e0183116-e0183116&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0183116&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA500574586%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1928765629&rft_id=info:pmid/28806728&rft_galeid=A500574586&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_c12c9ded8a2c454097db2cc465925848&rfr_iscdi=true |