Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil
Background Little is known about the quality and quantity of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in Brazil. Objective The objective of this study was to provide a systematic review of published CUAs of healthcare technologies in Brazil. Methods We performed a systematic review of economic evaluations studi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Applied health economics and health policy 2017-04, Vol.15 (2), p.163-172 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 172 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 163 |
| container_title | Applied health economics and health policy |
| container_volume | 15 |
| creator | Campolina, Alessandro G. Rozman, Luciana M. Decimoni, Tassia C. Leandro, Roseli Novaes, Hillegonda M. D. De Soárez, Patrícia Coelho |
| description | Background
Little is known about the quality and quantity of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in Brazil.
Objective
The objective of this study was to provide a systematic review of published CUAs of healthcare technologies in Brazil.
Methods
We performed a systematic review of economic evaluations studies published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment) Database, Web of Science, Scopus, Bireme (Biblioteca Regional de Medicina), BVS ECOS (Health Economics database of the Brazilian Virtual Library of Health), and SISREBRATS (Sistema de Informação da Rede Brasileira de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde [Brazilian Network for the Evaluation of Health Technologies]) from 1980 to 2013. Articles were included if they were CUAs according to the classification devised by Drummond et al. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and carried out data extraction. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or through consultation with a third reviewer. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis.
Results
Of the 535 health economic evaluations (HEEs) relating to Brazil, only 40 were CUAs and therefore included in the analysis. Most studies adhered to methodological guidelines for quality of reporting and 77.5% used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the health outcome. Of these studies, 51.6% did not report the population used to elicit preferences for outcomes and 45.2% used a specific population such as expert opinion. The preference elicitation method was not reported in 58.1% of these studies. The majority (80.6%) of studies did not report the instrument used to derive health state valuations and no publication reported whether tariffs (or preference weights) were national or international. No study mentioned the methodology used to estimate QALYs.
Conclusions
Many published Brazilian cost-utility studies adhere to key recommended general methods for HEE; however, the use of QALY calculations is far from being the current international standard. Development of health preferences research can contribute to quality improvement of health technology assessment reports in Brazil. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s40258-016-0290-x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1835002988</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1924519244</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-acd6d1b5715e9e765822eff1e0f1041bf9478842205a5c26134d13a72658dbe83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtOxCAUhonReH8AN4bEjRsUGCjgbpx4SzQmjrMmTHuqmE6rhVHr00ud0RgTN1zCd37O-RDaY_SIUaqOg6BcakJZRig3lLyvoE3GlCFMm2z16yyJzCTfQFshPFHKs8yIdbTBlTJaGbWJJjeu7vCNryDg2OCL5gQP8bgLEWYu-hzfwauHN9yUOD4CHkcXob-MmhDJJPrKxw4Pa1d1IQX4Gp-27sNXO2itdFWA3eW-jSbnZ_ejS3J9e3E1Gl6TXFAZicuLrGBTqZgEAyqTmnMoSwa0ZFSwaWmE0lpwTqWTOc_YQBRs4BRPZDEFPdhGh4vc57Z5mUOIduZDDlXlamjmwTI9kGlqo3v04A_61Mzb1HmiDBeyX0Si2ILK2yaEFkr73PqZazvLqO2d24Vzm5zb3rl9TzX7y-T5dAbFT8W35ATwBRDSU_0A7a-v_039BJgCiio</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1924519244</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Campolina, Alessandro G. ; Rozman, Luciana M. ; Decimoni, Tassia C. ; Leandro, Roseli ; Novaes, Hillegonda M. D. ; De Soárez, Patrícia Coelho</creator><creatorcontrib>Campolina, Alessandro G. ; Rozman, Luciana M. ; Decimoni, Tassia C. ; Leandro, Roseli ; Novaes, Hillegonda M. D. ; De Soárez, Patrícia Coelho</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Little is known about the quality and quantity of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in Brazil.
Objective
The objective of this study was to provide a systematic review of published CUAs of healthcare technologies in Brazil.
Methods
We performed a systematic review of economic evaluations studies published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment) Database, Web of Science, Scopus, Bireme (Biblioteca Regional de Medicina), BVS ECOS (Health Economics database of the Brazilian Virtual Library of Health), and SISREBRATS (Sistema de Informação da Rede Brasileira de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde [Brazilian Network for the Evaluation of Health Technologies]) from 1980 to 2013. Articles were included if they were CUAs according to the classification devised by Drummond et al. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and carried out data extraction. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or through consultation with a third reviewer. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis.
Results
Of the 535 health economic evaluations (HEEs) relating to Brazil, only 40 were CUAs and therefore included in the analysis. Most studies adhered to methodological guidelines for quality of reporting and 77.5% used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the health outcome. Of these studies, 51.6% did not report the population used to elicit preferences for outcomes and 45.2% used a specific population such as expert opinion. The preference elicitation method was not reported in 58.1% of these studies. The majority (80.6%) of studies did not report the instrument used to derive health state valuations and no publication reported whether tariffs (or preference weights) were national or international. No study mentioned the methodology used to estimate QALYs.
Conclusions
Many published Brazilian cost-utility studies adhere to key recommended general methods for HEE; however, the use of QALY calculations is far from being the current international standard. Development of health preferences research can contribute to quality improvement of health technology assessment reports in Brazil.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1175-5652</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1179-1896</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0290-x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27798797</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Brazil ; Classification ; Cost-Benefit Analysis - methods ; Cost-Benefit Analysis - standards ; Cost-Benefit Analysis - statistics & numerical data ; Digital libraries ; Economics ; Health Administration ; Health care policy ; Health Economics ; Health sciences ; Health services ; Health technology assessment ; Humans ; International standards ; Internet ; Libraries ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Methods ; Pharmacoeconomics ; Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes ; Population ; Preferences ; Public Health ; Quality ; Quality of care ; Quality of Life Research ; Quality-Adjusted Life Years ; Systematic Review ; Tariffs ; Technology ; Technology adoption ; Technology assessment ; Technology Assessment, Biomedical - methods ; Technology Assessment, Biomedical - standards ; Technology Assessment, Biomedical - statistics & numerical data ; Treatment Outcome ; Valuation</subject><ispartof>Applied health economics and health policy, 2017-04, Vol.15 (2), p.163-172</ispartof><rights>Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Science & Business Media Apr 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-acd6d1b5715e9e765822eff1e0f1041bf9478842205a5c26134d13a72658dbe83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-acd6d1b5715e9e765822eff1e0f1041bf9478842205a5c26134d13a72658dbe83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40258-016-0290-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0290-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27865,27923,27924,41487,42556,51318</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27798797$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Campolina, Alessandro G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rozman, Luciana M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Decimoni, Tassia C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leandro, Roseli</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novaes, Hillegonda M. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Soárez, Patrícia Coelho</creatorcontrib><title>Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil</title><title>Applied health economics and health policy</title><addtitle>Appl Health Econ Health Policy</addtitle><addtitle>Appl Health Econ Health Policy</addtitle><description>Background
Little is known about the quality and quantity of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in Brazil.
Objective
The objective of this study was to provide a systematic review of published CUAs of healthcare technologies in Brazil.
Methods
We performed a systematic review of economic evaluations studies published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment) Database, Web of Science, Scopus, Bireme (Biblioteca Regional de Medicina), BVS ECOS (Health Economics database of the Brazilian Virtual Library of Health), and SISREBRATS (Sistema de Informação da Rede Brasileira de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde [Brazilian Network for the Evaluation of Health Technologies]) from 1980 to 2013. Articles were included if they were CUAs according to the classification devised by Drummond et al. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and carried out data extraction. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or through consultation with a third reviewer. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis.
Results
Of the 535 health economic evaluations (HEEs) relating to Brazil, only 40 were CUAs and therefore included in the analysis. Most studies adhered to methodological guidelines for quality of reporting and 77.5% used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the health outcome. Of these studies, 51.6% did not report the population used to elicit preferences for outcomes and 45.2% used a specific population such as expert opinion. The preference elicitation method was not reported in 58.1% of these studies. The majority (80.6%) of studies did not report the instrument used to derive health state valuations and no publication reported whether tariffs (or preference weights) were national or international. No study mentioned the methodology used to estimate QALYs.
Conclusions
Many published Brazilian cost-utility studies adhere to key recommended general methods for HEE; however, the use of QALY calculations is far from being the current international standard. Development of health preferences research can contribute to quality improvement of health technology assessment reports in Brazil.</description><subject>Brazil</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis - methods</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis - standards</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Digital libraries</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Health Administration</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>Health Economics</subject><subject>Health sciences</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Health technology assessment</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>International standards</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Libraries</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Pharmacoeconomics</subject><subject>Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Quality of care</subject><subject>Quality of Life Research</subject><subject>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</subject><subject>Systematic Review</subject><subject>Tariffs</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Technology adoption</subject><subject>Technology assessment</subject><subject>Technology Assessment, Biomedical - methods</subject><subject>Technology Assessment, Biomedical - standards</subject><subject>Technology Assessment, Biomedical - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Valuation</subject><issn>1175-5652</issn><issn>1179-1896</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtOxCAUhonReH8AN4bEjRsUGCjgbpx4SzQmjrMmTHuqmE6rhVHr00ud0RgTN1zCd37O-RDaY_SIUaqOg6BcakJZRig3lLyvoE3GlCFMm2z16yyJzCTfQFshPFHKs8yIdbTBlTJaGbWJJjeu7vCNryDg2OCL5gQP8bgLEWYu-hzfwauHN9yUOD4CHkcXob-MmhDJJPrKxw4Pa1d1IQX4Gp-27sNXO2itdFWA3eW-jSbnZ_ejS3J9e3E1Gl6TXFAZicuLrGBTqZgEAyqTmnMoSwa0ZFSwaWmE0lpwTqWTOc_YQBRs4BRPZDEFPdhGh4vc57Z5mUOIduZDDlXlamjmwTI9kGlqo3v04A_61Mzb1HmiDBeyX0Si2ILK2yaEFkr73PqZazvLqO2d24Vzm5zb3rl9TzX7y-T5dAbFT8W35ATwBRDSU_0A7a-v_039BJgCiio</recordid><startdate>20170401</startdate><enddate>20170401</enddate><creator>Campolina, Alessandro G.</creator><creator>Rozman, Luciana M.</creator><creator>Decimoni, Tassia C.</creator><creator>Leandro, Roseli</creator><creator>Novaes, Hillegonda M. D.</creator><creator>De Soárez, Patrícia Coelho</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</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>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170401</creationdate><title>Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil</title><author>Campolina, Alessandro G. ; Rozman, Luciana M. ; Decimoni, Tassia C. ; Leandro, Roseli ; Novaes, Hillegonda M. D. ; De Soárez, Patrícia Coelho</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c405t-acd6d1b5715e9e765822eff1e0f1041bf9478842205a5c26134d13a72658dbe83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Brazil</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis - methods</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis - standards</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Digital libraries</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Health Administration</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>Health Economics</topic><topic>Health sciences</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Health technology assessment</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>International standards</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Libraries</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Pharmacoeconomics</topic><topic>Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Quality of care</topic><topic>Quality of Life Research</topic><topic>Quality-Adjusted Life Years</topic><topic>Systematic Review</topic><topic>Tariffs</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Technology adoption</topic><topic>Technology assessment</topic><topic>Technology Assessment, Biomedical - methods</topic><topic>Technology Assessment, Biomedical - standards</topic><topic>Technology Assessment, Biomedical - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Valuation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Campolina, Alessandro G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rozman, Luciana M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Decimoni, Tassia C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leandro, Roseli</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novaes, Hillegonda M. D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Soárez, Patrícia Coelho</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Applied health economics and health policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Campolina, Alessandro G.</au><au>Rozman, Luciana M.</au><au>Decimoni, Tassia C.</au><au>Leandro, Roseli</au><au>Novaes, Hillegonda M. D.</au><au>De Soárez, Patrícia Coelho</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil</atitle><jtitle>Applied health economics and health policy</jtitle><stitle>Appl Health Econ Health Policy</stitle><addtitle>Appl Health Econ Health Policy</addtitle><date>2017-04-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>163</spage><epage>172</epage><pages>163-172</pages><issn>1175-5652</issn><eissn>1179-1896</eissn><abstract>Background
Little is known about the quality and quantity of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in Brazil.
Objective
The objective of this study was to provide a systematic review of published CUAs of healthcare technologies in Brazil.
Methods
We performed a systematic review of economic evaluations studies published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment) Database, Web of Science, Scopus, Bireme (Biblioteca Regional de Medicina), BVS ECOS (Health Economics database of the Brazilian Virtual Library of Health), and SISREBRATS (Sistema de Informação da Rede Brasileira de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde [Brazilian Network for the Evaluation of Health Technologies]) from 1980 to 2013. Articles were included if they were CUAs according to the classification devised by Drummond et al. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and carried out data extraction. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or through consultation with a third reviewer. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis.
Results
Of the 535 health economic evaluations (HEEs) relating to Brazil, only 40 were CUAs and therefore included in the analysis. Most studies adhered to methodological guidelines for quality of reporting and 77.5% used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the health outcome. Of these studies, 51.6% did not report the population used to elicit preferences for outcomes and 45.2% used a specific population such as expert opinion. The preference elicitation method was not reported in 58.1% of these studies. The majority (80.6%) of studies did not report the instrument used to derive health state valuations and no publication reported whether tariffs (or preference weights) were national or international. No study mentioned the methodology used to estimate QALYs.
Conclusions
Many published Brazilian cost-utility studies adhere to key recommended general methods for HEE; however, the use of QALY calculations is far from being the current international standard. Development of health preferences research can contribute to quality improvement of health technology assessment reports in Brazil.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>27798797</pmid><doi>10.1007/s40258-016-0290-x</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1175-5652 |
| ispartof | Applied health economics and health policy, 2017-04, Vol.15 (2), p.163-172 |
| issn | 1175-5652 1179-1896 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1835002988 |
| source | MEDLINE; PAIS Index; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Brazil Classification Cost-Benefit Analysis - methods Cost-Benefit Analysis - standards Cost-Benefit Analysis - statistics & numerical data Digital libraries Economics Health Administration Health care policy Health Economics Health sciences Health services Health technology assessment Humans International standards Internet Libraries Medicine Medicine & Public Health Methods Pharmacoeconomics Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes Population Preferences Public Health Quality Quality of care Quality of Life Research Quality-Adjusted Life Years Systematic Review Tariffs Technology Technology adoption Technology assessment Technology Assessment, Biomedical - methods Technology Assessment, Biomedical - standards Technology Assessment, Biomedical - statistics & numerical data Treatment Outcome Valuation |
| title | Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-11T03%3A08%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Many%20Miles%20to%20Go:%20A%20Systematic%20Review%20of%20the%20State%20of%20Cost-Utility%20Analyses%20in%20Brazil&rft.jtitle=Applied%20health%20economics%20and%20health%20policy&rft.au=Campolina,%20Alessandro%20G.&rft.date=2017-04-01&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=163&rft.epage=172&rft.pages=163-172&rft.issn=1175-5652&rft.eissn=1179-1896&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s40258-016-0290-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1924519244%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1924519244&rft_id=info:pmid/27798797&rfr_iscdi=true |