Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluation Studies Developed in Brazil from 1980 to 2013

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_DECIMONI_Systematic_Review_of_Health_Economic_Evaluation_Studies_Developed_2018.PDF (1.16 MB)
Citações na Scopus
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2018
DOI
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
Autores
CRAIG, Dawn
IGLESIAS, Cynthia P.
Citação
FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH, v.6, article ID 52, 13p, 2018
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background: Brazil has sought to use economic evaluation to support healthcare decision-making processes. While a number of health economic evaluations (HEEs) have been conducted, no study has systematically reviewed the quality of Brazilian HEE. The objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview regarding the state of HEE research and to evaluate the number, characteristics, and quality of reporting of published HEE studies conducted in a Brazilian setting. Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Latin American, and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences Database, Scientific Electronic Library Online, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, health technology assessment Database, Bireme, and Biblioteca Virtual em Saude Economia da Saude); citation indexes (SCOPUS, Web of Science), and Sistema de Informacao da Rede Brasileira de Avaliacao de Tecnologia em Saude. Partial and full HEEs published between 1980 and 2013 that referred to a Brazilian setting were considered for inclusion. Results: In total, 535 studies were included in the review, 36.8% of these were considered to be full HEE. The category of healthcare technologies more frequently assessed were procedures (34.8%) and drugs (28.8%) which main objective was treatment (72.1%). Forty-four percent of the studies reported their funding source and 36% reported a conflict of interest. Overall, the full HEE quality of reporting was satisfactory. But some items were generally poorly reported and significant improvement is required: (1) methods used to estimate healthcare resource use quantities and unit costs, (2) methods used to estimate utility values, (3) sources of funding, and (4) conflicts of interest. Conclusion: A steady number of HEE have been published in Brazil since 1980. To improve their contribution to inform national healthcare policy efforts need to be made to enhance the quality of reporting of HEEs and promote improvements in the way HEEs are designed, implemented (i.e.,using sound methods for HEEs) and reported.
Palavras-chave
economic evaluation, cost-effectiveness, Brazil, cost-benefit analysis, health technology assessment
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/26400
Referências
  1. Al-Aqeel SA, 2012, CLINICOECONOMIC OUTC, V4, P177, DOI 10.2147/CEOR.S31087
  2. Andrade Eli Iola Gurgel, 2007, Rev. Adm. Pública, V41, P211, DOI 10.1590/S0034-76122007000200003
  3. Andrade MV, 2013, CAD SAUDE PUBLICA, V29, pS59, DOI 10.1590/0102-311X00021113
  4. Andrade M. V., 2013, VALUE HLTH REG ISSUE, V2, P405, DOI 10.1016/J.VHRI.2013.01.009
  5. Atehortua S, 2013, BIOMEDICA, V33, P615, DOI 10.7705/biomedica.v33i4.1464
  6. Augustovski F, 2009, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V27, P919, DOI 10.2165/11313670-000000000-00000
  7. Barbieri M, 2001, Curr Oncol Rep, V3, P410, DOI 10.1007/s11912-001-0027-2
  8. Barbieri M, 2010, VALUE HEALTH, V13, P1028, DOI 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00771.x
  9. Barnieh L, 2014, VALUE HEALTH, V17, P98, DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.008
  10. Campolina AG, 2011, CIENC SAUDE COLETIVA, V16, P3103, DOI 10.1590/S1413-81232011000800010
  11. Cooper Nicola, 2005, J Health Serv Res Policy, V10, P245, DOI 10.1258/135581905774414187
  12. Cornago D, 2007, EUR J HEALTH ECON, V8, P89, DOI 10.1007/s10198-006-0011-8
  13. Coyle D, 2002, EVIDENCE BASED HLTH, P55
  14. Craig D, 2007, NHS EC EVALUATION DA
  15. Cruz LN, 2011, VALUE HEALTH, V14, pS108, DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2011.05.012
  16. Dalziel Kim, 2008, Cost Eff Resour Alloc, V6, P9, DOI 10.1186/1478-7547-6-9
  17. da Saude M, 2014, SECRETARIA CIENCIA T
  18. Dept Ciencia Tecnologia, 2006, REV SAUDE PUBL, V40, P743
  19. Drummond M, 1993, Int J Technol Assess Health Care, V9, P26
  20. Drummond MF, 2005, METHODS EC EVALUATIO
  21. Drummond MF, 2008, INT J TECHNOL ASSESS, V24, P146, DOI 10.1017/S0266462308080203
  22. Gavaza P, 2008, CURR THER RES CLIN E, V69, P268, DOI 10.1016/j.curtheres.2008.06.005
  23. Gavaza P, 2012, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V30, P925, DOI 10.2165/11589450-000000000-00000
  24. Gavaza P, 2010, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V28, P539, DOI 10.2165/11536170-000000000-00000
  25. HAGHPARASTBIDGOLI, 2014, COST EFFECT RESOUR A, V12, DOI 10.1186/1478-7547-12-15
  26. Hoomans T, 2012, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V30, P219, DOI 10.2165/11539850-000000000-00000
  27. Hoque Mohammad E, 2011, Cost Eff Resour Alloc, V9, P12, DOI 10.1186/1478-7547-9-12
  28. Husereau D, 2013, VALUE HEALTH, V16, P231, DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002
  29. Hutton J, 2012, HEALTH ECON, V21, P13, DOI 10.1002/hec.1818
  30. Iglesias CP, 2005, INT J TECHNOL ASSESS, V21, P1
  31. Jakovljevic M, 2017, HEALTH ECON, V26, P844, DOI 10.1002/hec.3406
  32. Jakovljevic Mihajlo B, 2015, Front Public Health, V3, P135, DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2015.00135
  33. Jakovljevic M, 2017, FRONT PUBLIC HEALTH, V5, DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00211
  34. Jakovljevic M, 2016, FRONT PUBLIC HEALTH, V4, DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00115
  35. Jang S, 2010, BREAST CANCER RES TR, V121, P273, DOI 10.1007/s10549-010-0870-7
  36. Kaltenthaler E, 2011, 13 SCHARR DSU U SHEF
  37. Lee KS, 2005, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V23, P709, DOI 10.2165/00019053-200523070-00005
  38. Marten R, 2014, LANCET, V384, P2164, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60075-1
  39. Moher D, 2009, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V339, DOI [10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097, 10.1136/bmj.b2535, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007]
  40. Neumann PJ, 2015, VALUE HEALTH, V18, P271, DOI [10.1016/j.jval.2014.13.002, 10.1016/j.jval.2014.12.002]
  41. Neumann PJ, 2009, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V27, P861, DOI 10.2165/11312720-000000000-00000
  42. Novaes H, 2013, CAD SAUDE PUBLICA S, V29, pS7, DOI [DOI 10.1590/0102-311X00008413, 10.1590/0102-311X00008413]
  43. OECD, 2014, OECD HLTH STAT 2014
  44. Organization WH, 2016, INT CLASS DIS ICD 10
  45. Rajkumar AS, 2014, HLTH FINANCING PROFI
  46. Schwappach DLB, 2007, BMC HEALTH SERV RES, V7, DOI 10.1186/1472-6963-7-7
  47. SG S., 2000, BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY P
  48. Teerawattananon Y, 2007, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V25, P467, DOI 10.2165/00019053-200725060-00003
  49. Thorat T, 2015, VALUE HLTH REG ISSUE, V6C, P7, DOI 10.1016/j.vhri.2015.02.001
  50. Tran BX, 2014, PLOS ONE, V9, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0103825
  51. Valachis A, 2012, J CLIN ONCOL, V30, P1316, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.6078
  52. Vianna SM., 1998, EVOLUCAO PERSPECTIVE
  53. Walker DG, 2012, AHRQ PUBLICATION, V12(13)-EHC132-EF
  54. WEINSTEIN MC, 1977, NEW ENGL J MED, V296, P716, DOI 10.1056/NEJM197703312961304
  55. WILLIAMS A, 1974, BRIT MED BULL, V30, P252, DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bmb.a071211
  56. [Anonymous], 2009, SYSTEMATIC REV EC EV

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MPR
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/38
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/39