Recommendations for Emerging Good Practice and Future Research in Relation to Family and Caregiver Health Spillovers in Health Economic Evaluations: A Report of the SHEER Task Force

A Systematic Review of Methods and Practice for Integrating Maternal, Fetal, and Child Health Outcomes, and Family Spillover Effects into Cost-Utility Analyses

BACKGROUND

Maternal-perinatal interventions delivered during pregnancy or childbirth have unique characteristics that impact the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of the mother, fetus, and newborn child. However, maternal-perinatal cost-utility analyses (CUAs) often only consider either maternal or child health outcomes. Challenges include, but are not limited to, measuring fetal, newborn, and infant health outcomes, and assessing their impact on maternal HRQoL. It is also important to recognize the impact of maternal-perinatal health on family members' HRQoL (i.e., family spillover effects) and to incorporate these effects in maternal-perinatal CUAs.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to systematically review the methods used to include health outcomes of pregnant women, fetuses, and children and to incorporate family spillover effects in maternal-perinatal CUAs.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, EconLit, Cochrane Collection, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), and the Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation (PEDE) databases from inception to 2020 to identify maternal-perinatal CUAs that included health outcomes for pregnant women, fetuses, and/or children. The search was updated to December 2022 using PEDE. Data describing how the health outcomes of mothers, fetuses, and children were measured, incorporated, and reported along with the data on family spillover effects were extracted.

RESULTS

Out of 174 maternal-perinatal CUAs identified, 62 considered the health outcomes of pregnant women, and children. Among the 54 quality-adjusted life year (QALY)-based CUAs, 12 included fetal health outcomes, the impact of fetal loss on mothers' HRQoL, and the impact of neonatal demise on mothers' HRQoL. Four studies considered fetal health outcomes and the effects of fetal loss on mothers' HRQoL. One study included fetal health outcomes and the impact of neonatal demise on maternal HRQoL. Furthermore, six studies considered the impact of neonatal demise on maternal HRQoL, while four included fetal health outcomes. One study included the impact of fetal loss on maternal HRQoL. The remaining 26 only included the health outcomes of pregnant women and children. Among the eight disability-adjusted life year (DALY)-based CUAs, two measured fetal health outcomes. Out of 174 studies, only one study included family spillover effects. The most common measurement approach was to measure the health outcomes of pregnant women and children separately. Various approaches were used to assess fetal losses in terms of QALYs or DALYs and their impact on HRQoL of mothers. The most common integration approach was to sum the QALYs or DALYs for pregnant women and children. Most studies reported combined QALYs and incremental QALYs, or DALYs and incremental DALYs, at the family level for pregnant women and children.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-third of maternal-perinatal CUAs included the health outcomes of pregnant women, fetuses, and/or children. Future CUAs of maternal-perinatal interventions, conducted from a societal perspective, should aim to incorporate health outcomes for mothers, fetuses, and children when appropriate. The various approaches used within these CUAs highlight the need for standardized measurement and integration methods, potentially leading to rigorous and standardized inclusion practices, providing higher-quality evidence to better inform decision-makers about the costs and benefits of maternal-perinatal interventions. Health Technology Assessment agencies may consider providing guidance for interventions affecting future lives in future updates.

Examining how well economic evaluations capture the value of mental health

Health economics evidence informs health-care decision making, but the field has historically paid insufficient attention to mental health. Economic evaluations in health should define an appropriate scope for benefits and costs and how to value them. This Health Policy provides an overview of these processes and considers to what extent they capture the value of mental health. We suggest that although current practices are both transparent and justifiable, they have distinct limitations from the perspective of mental health. Most social value judgements, such as the exclusion of interindividual outcomes and intersectoral costs, diminish the value of improving mental health, and this reduction in value might be disproportionate compared with other types of health. Economic analyses might have disadvantaged interventions that improve mental health compared with physical health, but research is required to test the size of such differential effects and any subsequent effect on decision-making systems such as health technology assessment systems. Collaboration between health economics and the mental health sciences is crucial for achieving mental-physical health parity in evaluative frameworks and, ultimately, improving population mental health.