Challenges in economic evaluations in obstetric care: a scoping review and expert opinion

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.

Designing economic evaluations alongside clinical trials in maternal health care: A guide for clinical trial design

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations are being conducted with increasing frequency in the maternity care setting, with more randomized controlled trials containing a health economic component. Key emerging criticisms of economic evaluation in maternity care are lack of robust data collection and measurement, inconsistencies in methodology, and lack of adherence to reporting guidelines.

METHODS

This article provides a guide to the design of economic evaluations alongside clinical trials in maternal health. We include economic concepts and considerations for the maternity setting and provide examples from the UK and Australia.

RESULTS

There are many important considerations for the design of economic evaluations alongside clinical trials. To be effective, researchers must select types of economic evaluation, which align with their study objectives; choose an appropriate evaluation perspective, time horizon, and discount rate; and identify accurate ways to measure and evaluate health outcomes and costs.

DISCUSSION

This guide is written for noneconomists and can be used for designing economic evaluations to be conducted as a part of clinical trials. We seek to improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of economic evaluations in maternal health.

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of maternity models of care

OBJECTIVES

In this systematic review, we aimed to identify the full extent of cost-effectiveness evidence available for evaluating alternative Maternity Models of Care (MMC) and to summarize findings narratively.

METHODS

Articles that included a decision tree or state-based (Markov) model to explore the cost-effectiveness of an MMC, and at least one comparator MMC, were identified from a systematic literature review. The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar databases were searched for papers published in English, Arabic, and French. A narrative synthesis was conducted to analyse results.

RESULTS

Three studies were included; all using cost-effectiveness decision tree models with data sourced from a combination of trials, databases, and the literature. Study quality was fair to poor. Each study compared midwife-led or doula-assisted care to obstetrician- or physician-led care. The findings from these studies indicate that midwife and doula led MMCs may provide value.

CONCLUSION

The findings of these studies indicate weak evidence that midwife and doula models of care may be a cost-effective or cost-saving alternative to standard care. However, the poor quality of evidence, lack of standardised MMC classifications, and the dearth of research conducted in this area are barriers to conclusive evaluation and highlight the need for more research incorporating appropriate models and population diversity.

Economic Evaluation of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Methodological Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Medically assisted reproduction (MAR) is a challenging application area for health economic evaluations, entailing a broad range of costs and outcomes, stretching out long-term and accruing to several parties.

PURPOSE

To systematically review which costs and outcomes are included in published economic evaluations of MAR and to compare these with health technology assessment (HTA) prescriptions about which cost and outcomes should be considered for different evaluation objectives.

DATA SOURCES

HTA guidelines and systematic searches of PubMed Central, Embase, WOS CC, CINAHL, Cochrane (CENTRAL), HTA, and NHS EED.

STUDY SELECTION

All economic evaluations of MAR published from 2010 to 2022.

DATA EXTRACTION

A predetermined data collection form summarized study characteristics. Essential costs and outcomes of MAR were listed based on HTA and treatment guidelines for different evaluation objectives. For each study, included costs and outcomes were reviewed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The review identified 93 cost-effectiveness estimates, of which 57% were expressed as cost-per-(healthy)-live-birth, 19% as cost-per-pregnancy, and 47% adopted a clinic perspective. Few adopted societal perspectives and only 2% used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Broader evaluations omitted various relevant costs and outcomes related to MAR. There are several cost and outcome categories for which available HTA guidelines do not provide conclusive directions regarding inclusion or exclusion.

LIMITATIONS

Studies published before 2010 and of interventions not clearly labeled as MAR were excluded. We focus on methods rather than which MAR treatments are cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations of MAR typically calculate a short-term cost-per-live-birth from a clinic perspective. Broader analyses, using cost-per-QALY or BCRs from societal perspectives, considering the full scope of reproduction-related costs and outcomes, are scarce and often incomplete. We provide a summary of costs and outcomes for future research guidance and identify areas requiring HTA methodological development.

HIGHLIGHTS

The cost-effectiveness of MAR procedures can be exceptionally complex to estimate as there is a broad range of costs and outcomes involved, in principle stretching out over multiple generations and over many stakeholders.We list 21 key areas of costs and outcomes of MAR. Which of these needs to be accounted for alters for different evaluation objectives (determined by the type of economic evaluation, time horizon considered, and perspective).Published studies mostly investigate cost-effectiveness in the very short-term, from a clinic perspective, expressed as cost-per-live-birth. There is a lack of comprehensive economic evaluations that adopt a broader perspective with a longer time horizon. The broader the evaluation objective, the more relevant costs and outcomes were excluded.For several costs and outcomes, particularly those relevant for broader, societal evaluations of MAR, the inclusion or exclusion is theoretically ambiguous, and HTA guidelines do not offer sufficient guidance.

Challenges in economic evaluations in obstetric care: a scoping review and expert opinion

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to identify items of economic evaluation guidelines that are frequently not complied within obstetric economic evaluations and to search for reasons for non-adherence.

DESIGN

Scoping review and qualitative study.

SETTING

Literature on economic evaluations in obstetric care and interviews with experts.

POPULATION OR SAMPLE

The sample included 229 scientific articles and five experts.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. All types of literature about economic evaluations in obstetric care were included. The adherence to guidelines was assessed and articles were qualitatively analysed on additional information about reasons for non-adherence. Issues that arose from the scoping review were discussed with experts.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Adherence to guideline items of the included economic evaluations studies. Analytical themes describing reasons for non-adherence, resulting from qualitative analysis of articles and interviews with experts.

RESULTS

A total of 184 economic evaluations and 45 other type of articles were included. Guideline items frequently not complied with were time horizon, type of economic evaluation and effect measure. Reasons for non-adherence had to do with paucity of long-term health data and assessing and combining outcomes for mother and child resulting from obstetric interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified items of guidelines that are frequently not complied with and the reasons behind this. The results are a starting point for a broad consensus building on how to deal with these challenges that can result in special guidance for the conduct of economic evaluations in obstetric care.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Non-adherence to guidelines in obstetric economic evaluation studies: the difficulties in detail.