Adherence to Discounting Guidelines: Evidence from Over 2000 Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses
Previous studies have shown that not all cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) adhere to recommended guidelines on intertemporal discounting. This analysis investigates adherence in a sample of over 2000 CEAs from seven countries. Guideline discount rates were retrieved for Australia, Belgium, Canada,...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PharmacoEconomics 2020-08, Vol.38 (8), p.809-818 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 818 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 809 |
| container_title | PharmacoEconomics |
| container_volume | 38 |
| creator | Kwok, Michelle Q. T. Kareem, Mistura A. Cash, Michael J. Lafferty, Fiona Tobin, Katy O’Mahony, James F. |
| description | Previous studies have shown that not all cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) adhere to recommended guidelines on intertemporal discounting. This analysis investigates adherence in a sample of over 2000 CEAs from seven countries. Guideline discount rates were retrieved for Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, The Netherlands, New Zealand and the UK. Data on the rates applied in published CEAs were retrieved from the Tufts CEA Registry from the sample countries within the periods covered by the discounting guidelines. The relationship between adherence and candidate explanatory factors were assessed using logistic regression. The analysis appraised 2270 CEAs. The overall rate of adherence to discounting recommendations was 79%. Country-specific adherence ranged from 28% in New Zealand to 87% in Belgium and the UK. Adherence in Australia and Canada was 73% and 66%, respectively. Adherence is statistically significantly higher in more recent studies, countries currently applying differential discounting and manufacturer-sponsored studies. Relative to the reference case of Australia, adherence is statistically significantly higher in the UK and lower in Canada and New Zealand. There is notable variation in the rates of adherence to discounting recommendations between countries and over time. Incomplete adherence raises concerns regarding the comparability of evidence between studies. In turn, this raises concerns regarding equity of access to scarce healthcare resources. Journal editors should ensure that adherence to discounting recommendations is assessed as part of the peer review process. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s40273-020-00916-4 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2395601645</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A714603243</galeid><sourcerecordid>A714603243</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-a77baddbad84fc681560a2b35bc07b71a2a3713f463f4b18f7aeabd9a0582c43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1r3DAQhk1padK0f6CHYuilF6ejD0t2b8t2mwYCySF3IcujjYJtpZK9kH_f2WzS0FKCGDRIz7zMzFsUHxmcMgD9NUvgWlTAoQJomarkq-KYMd1WnD5eP-RQadXCUfEu51sAUELzt8WR4EJyKdrjolv1N5hwcljOsfwesovLNIdpW54tocchTJi_lZsd5XvGpziWlztMJSe18mrphpBvsC_XMc_Vxnt0c9ghFeVyNdnhPmN-X7zxdsj44fE-Ka5_bK7XP6uLy7Pz9eqiclLyubJad7bvKRrpnWpYrcDyTtSdA91pZrkVmgkvFUXHGq8t2q5vLdQNd1KcFF8Osncp_lowz2akaXAY7IRxyYaLlhSZkjWhn_9Bb-OSqF2iaC-qbkCxZ2prBzRh8nFO1u1FzUozqUDQCok6_Q9Fp8cxuDihD_T-VwE_FLgUc07ozV0Ko033hoHZ-2oOvhry1Tz4avbDfXrseOlG7P-UPBlJgDgAmb6mLabnkV6Q_Q3a86tD</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2424658061</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Adherence to Discounting Guidelines: Evidence from Over 2000 Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses</title><source>SpringerLink Journals (MCLS)</source><creator>Kwok, Michelle Q. T. ; Kareem, Mistura A. ; Cash, Michael J. ; Lafferty, Fiona ; Tobin, Katy ; O’Mahony, James F.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kwok, Michelle Q. T. ; Kareem, Mistura A. ; Cash, Michael J. ; Lafferty, Fiona ; Tobin, Katy ; O’Mahony, James F.</creatorcontrib><description>Previous studies have shown that not all cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) adhere to recommended guidelines on intertemporal discounting. This analysis investigates adherence in a sample of over 2000 CEAs from seven countries. Guideline discount rates were retrieved for Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, The Netherlands, New Zealand and the UK. Data on the rates applied in published CEAs were retrieved from the Tufts CEA Registry from the sample countries within the periods covered by the discounting guidelines. The relationship between adherence and candidate explanatory factors were assessed using logistic regression. The analysis appraised 2270 CEAs. The overall rate of adherence to discounting recommendations was 79%. Country-specific adherence ranged from 28% in New Zealand to 87% in Belgium and the UK. Adherence in Australia and Canada was 73% and 66%, respectively. Adherence is statistically significantly higher in more recent studies, countries currently applying differential discounting and manufacturer-sponsored studies. Relative to the reference case of Australia, adherence is statistically significantly higher in the UK and lower in Canada and New Zealand. There is notable variation in the rates of adherence to discounting recommendations between countries and over time. Incomplete adherence raises concerns regarding the comparability of evidence between studies. In turn, this raises concerns regarding equity of access to scarce healthcare resources. Journal editors should ensure that adherence to discounting recommendations is assessed as part of the peer review process.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1170-7690</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1179-2027</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00916-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32342439</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Cost analysis ; Cost benefit analysis ; Decision making ; Discount rates ; Economic aspects ; Evaluation ; Funding ; Health Administration ; Health care rationing ; Health Economics ; Health technology assessment ; Intervention ; Investigations ; Medical economics ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Methods ; Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes ; Public Health ; Quality of Life Research ; Review Article ; Studies</subject><ispartof>PharmacoEconomics, 2020-08, Vol.38 (8), p.809-818</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Springer</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Nature B.V. Aug 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-a77baddbad84fc681560a2b35bc07b71a2a3713f463f4b18f7aeabd9a0582c43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-a77baddbad84fc681560a2b35bc07b71a2a3713f463f4b18f7aeabd9a0582c43</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8537-3273 ; 0000-0003-3414-7388</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40273-020-00916-4$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00916-4$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32342439$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kwok, Michelle Q. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kareem, Mistura A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cash, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lafferty, Fiona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tobin, Katy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Mahony, James F.</creatorcontrib><title>Adherence to Discounting Guidelines: Evidence from Over 2000 Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses</title><title>PharmacoEconomics</title><addtitle>PharmacoEconomics</addtitle><addtitle>Pharmacoeconomics</addtitle><description>Previous studies have shown that not all cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) adhere to recommended guidelines on intertemporal discounting. This analysis investigates adherence in a sample of over 2000 CEAs from seven countries. Guideline discount rates were retrieved for Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, The Netherlands, New Zealand and the UK. Data on the rates applied in published CEAs were retrieved from the Tufts CEA Registry from the sample countries within the periods covered by the discounting guidelines. The relationship between adherence and candidate explanatory factors were assessed using logistic regression. The analysis appraised 2270 CEAs. The overall rate of adherence to discounting recommendations was 79%. Country-specific adherence ranged from 28% in New Zealand to 87% in Belgium and the UK. Adherence in Australia and Canada was 73% and 66%, respectively. Adherence is statistically significantly higher in more recent studies, countries currently applying differential discounting and manufacturer-sponsored studies. Relative to the reference case of Australia, adherence is statistically significantly higher in the UK and lower in Canada and New Zealand. There is notable variation in the rates of adherence to discounting recommendations between countries and over time. Incomplete adherence raises concerns regarding the comparability of evidence between studies. In turn, this raises concerns regarding equity of access to scarce healthcare resources. Journal editors should ensure that adherence to discounting recommendations is assessed as part of the peer review process.</description><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Discount rates</subject><subject>Economic aspects</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Funding</subject><subject>Health Administration</subject><subject>Health care rationing</subject><subject>Health Economics</subject><subject>Health technology assessment</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Investigations</subject><subject>Medical economics</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes</subject><subject>Public Health</subject><subject>Quality of Life Research</subject><subject>Review Article</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>1170-7690</issn><issn>1179-2027</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1r3DAQhk1padK0f6CHYuilF6ejD0t2b8t2mwYCySF3IcujjYJtpZK9kH_f2WzS0FKCGDRIz7zMzFsUHxmcMgD9NUvgWlTAoQJomarkq-KYMd1WnD5eP-RQadXCUfEu51sAUELzt8WR4EJyKdrjolv1N5hwcljOsfwesovLNIdpW54tocchTJi_lZsd5XvGpziWlztMJSe18mrphpBvsC_XMc_Vxnt0c9ghFeVyNdnhPmN-X7zxdsj44fE-Ka5_bK7XP6uLy7Pz9eqiclLyubJad7bvKRrpnWpYrcDyTtSdA91pZrkVmgkvFUXHGq8t2q5vLdQNd1KcFF8Osncp_lowz2akaXAY7IRxyYaLlhSZkjWhn_9Bb-OSqF2iaC-qbkCxZ2prBzRh8nFO1u1FzUozqUDQCok6_Q9Fp8cxuDihD_T-VwE_FLgUc07ozV0Ko033hoHZ-2oOvhry1Tz4avbDfXrseOlG7P-UPBlJgDgAmb6mLabnkV6Q_Q3a86tD</recordid><startdate>20200801</startdate><enddate>20200801</enddate><creator>Kwok, Michelle Q. T.</creator><creator>Kareem, Mistura A.</creator><creator>Cash, Michael J.</creator><creator>Lafferty, Fiona</creator><creator>Tobin, Katy</creator><creator>O’Mahony, James F.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8537-3273</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3414-7388</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200801</creationdate><title>Adherence to Discounting Guidelines: Evidence from Over 2000 Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses</title><author>Kwok, Michelle Q. T. ; Kareem, Mistura A. ; Cash, Michael J. ; Lafferty, Fiona ; Tobin, Katy ; O’Mahony, James F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-a77baddbad84fc681560a2b35bc07b71a2a3713f463f4b18f7aeabd9a0582c43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Discount rates</topic><topic>Economic aspects</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Funding</topic><topic>Health Administration</topic><topic>Health care rationing</topic><topic>Health Economics</topic><topic>Health technology assessment</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Investigations</topic><topic>Medical economics</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes</topic><topic>Public Health</topic><topic>Quality of Life Research</topic><topic>Review Article</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kwok, Michelle Q. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kareem, Mistura A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cash, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lafferty, Fiona</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tobin, Katy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Mahony, James F.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</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 Collection</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</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)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</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 Central Student</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</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 One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>PharmacoEconomics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kwok, Michelle Q. T.</au><au>Kareem, Mistura A.</au><au>Cash, Michael J.</au><au>Lafferty, Fiona</au><au>Tobin, Katy</au><au>O’Mahony, James F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Adherence to Discounting Guidelines: Evidence from Over 2000 Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses</atitle><jtitle>PharmacoEconomics</jtitle><stitle>PharmacoEconomics</stitle><addtitle>Pharmacoeconomics</addtitle><date>2020-08-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>809</spage><epage>818</epage><pages>809-818</pages><issn>1170-7690</issn><eissn>1179-2027</eissn><abstract>Previous studies have shown that not all cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) adhere to recommended guidelines on intertemporal discounting. This analysis investigates adherence in a sample of over 2000 CEAs from seven countries. Guideline discount rates were retrieved for Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, The Netherlands, New Zealand and the UK. Data on the rates applied in published CEAs were retrieved from the Tufts CEA Registry from the sample countries within the periods covered by the discounting guidelines. The relationship between adherence and candidate explanatory factors were assessed using logistic regression. The analysis appraised 2270 CEAs. The overall rate of adherence to discounting recommendations was 79%. Country-specific adherence ranged from 28% in New Zealand to 87% in Belgium and the UK. Adherence in Australia and Canada was 73% and 66%, respectively. Adherence is statistically significantly higher in more recent studies, countries currently applying differential discounting and manufacturer-sponsored studies. Relative to the reference case of Australia, adherence is statistically significantly higher in the UK and lower in Canada and New Zealand. There is notable variation in the rates of adherence to discounting recommendations between countries and over time. Incomplete adherence raises concerns regarding the comparability of evidence between studies. In turn, this raises concerns regarding equity of access to scarce healthcare resources. Journal editors should ensure that adherence to discounting recommendations is assessed as part of the peer review process.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>32342439</pmid><doi>10.1007/s40273-020-00916-4</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8537-3273</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3414-7388</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1170-7690 |
| ispartof | PharmacoEconomics, 2020-08, Vol.38 (8), p.809-818 |
| issn | 1170-7690 1179-2027 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2395601645 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals (MCLS) |
| subjects | Cost analysis Cost benefit analysis Decision making Discount rates Economic aspects Evaluation Funding Health Administration Health care rationing Health Economics Health technology assessment Intervention Investigations Medical economics Medicine Medicine & Public Health Methods Pharmacoeconomics and Health Outcomes Public Health Quality of Life Research Review Article Studies |
| title | Adherence to Discounting Guidelines: Evidence from Over 2000 Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T20%3A41%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Adherence%20to%20Discounting%20Guidelines:%20Evidence%20from%20Over%202000%20Published%20Cost-Effectiveness%20Analyses&rft.jtitle=PharmacoEconomics&rft.au=Kwok,%20Michelle%20Q.%20T.&rft.date=2020-08-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=809&rft.epage=818&rft.pages=809-818&rft.issn=1170-7690&rft.eissn=1179-2027&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s40273-020-00916-4&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA714603243%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2424658061&rft_id=info:pmid/32342439&rft_galeid=A714603243&rfr_iscdi=true |