Applying an Implementation Framework to the Use of Evidence from Economic Evaluations in Making Healthcare Decisions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There is a need for the application of theory in understanding the use of evidence from economic evaluations in healthcare decision making. The purpose of this study is to review the published literature on the use of evidence from economic evaluations for healthcare decision making and to map the findings to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

METHODS

A systematic search strategy was used to identify studies investigating the factors that determine the use of evidence from economic evaluation in healthcare decision making. Barriers and facilitators identified in the included studies were mapped across the five CFIR domains, with the "intervention" referring to the use of economic evaluations in decision making. Gaps, inconsistencies and emergent relations were identified through the mapping process.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies met eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The CFIR constructs associated with the Intervention Characteristics and those associated with the knowledge and beliefs of users of economic evaluations were widely cited in the identified barriers and facilitators. Other constructs from the CFIR had not been reported in the literature, such as 'organisational networks' and 'individual stage of change'. Most of the stages in the implementation process as described by the CFIR were reflected in the identified barriers and facilitators.

DISCUSSION

By categorising barriers and facilitators into domains, the CFIR provides a systematic approach to assess how these factors interact. Literature gaps in the literature regarding the use of economic evaluation in healthcare decision making were identified, specifically issues regarding organisational networks and the role of feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

Through mapping findings from studies of the use of evidence from economic evaluations in healthcare decision making, we present an implementation framework based on the CFIR for understanding the use of economic evaluations into practice.

Lack of support structures in prioritization decision making concerning patients and resources. Interviews with Swedish physicians

AIM

To investigate physicians' experiences in relation to prioritization and financing in health care in order to gain a deeper understanding of the reasons behind their standpoints.

METHODS

Eighteen physicians, seven women and eleven men, aged 30 to 69 years were interviewed and the text was analyzed using an inductive approach, also described as conventional qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Experience of setting healthcare priorities and difficult decision making differed widely among the physicians and seemed to be related to the number of years in professional practice. Their view of how resources should be allocated between disciplines/patients showed that they wanted politicians to make the decisions, with support from medical professions. The overwhelming impression of their reasoning showed that they lacked support structures for their decision making and could be understood under the following categories: prioritisation, easier in theory than in practice, and increasing costs threaten the Swedish welfare model.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study highlight the importance of practical national guidelines concerning vertical prioritization, also as an important measure to make prioritization more distinct and transparent. The physicians further had a need for tools to increase patients' awareness of their health. The findings of this study also showed that an awareness of the actual costs involved might increase the responsibility among both physicians and patients. The physicians' lack of support structures implies an urgent need for practical national guidelines, especially concerning vertical prioritization. This will also make prioritization appear clear and transparent for citizens.