Self-reported healthcare decision-makers' attitudes towards economic evaluations of medical technologies

Hospital Investment Decisions in Healthcare 4.0 Technologies: Scoping Review and Framework for Exploring Challenges, Trends, and Research Directions

BACKGROUND

Alternative approaches to analyzing and evaluating health care investments in state-of-the-art technologies are being increasingly discussed in the literature, especially with the advent of Healthcare 4.0 (H4.0) technologies or eHealth. Such investments generally involve computer hardware and software that deal with the storage, retrieval, sharing, and use of health care information, data, and knowledge for communication and decision-making. Besides, the use of these technologies significantly increases when addressed in bundles. However, a structured and holistic approach to analyzing investments in H4.0 technologies is not available in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to analyze previous research related to the evaluation of H4.0 technologies in hospitals and characterize the most common investment approaches used. We propose a framework that organizes the research associated with hospitals' H4.0 technology investment decisions and suggest five main research directions on the topic.

METHODS

To achieve our goal, we followed the standard procedure for scoping reviews. We performed a search in the Crossref, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases with the keywords investment, health, industry 4.0, investment, health technology assessment, healthcare 4.0, and smart in the title, abstract, and keywords of research papers. We retrieved 5701 publications from all the databases. After removing papers published before 2011 as well as duplicates and performing further screening, we were left with 244 articles, from which 33 were selected after in-depth analysis to compose the final publication portfolio.

RESULTS

Our findings show the multidisciplinary nature of the research related to evaluating hospital investments in H4.0 technologies. We found that the most common investment approaches focused on cost analysis, single technology, and single decision-maker involvement, which dominate bundle analysis, H4.0 technology value considerations, and multiple decision-maker involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Some of our findings were unexpected, given the interrelated nature of H4.0 technologies and their multidimensional impact. Owing to the absence of a more holistic approach to H4.0 technology investment decisions, we identified five promising research directions for the topic: development of economic valuation methodologies tailored for H4.0 technologies; accounting for technology interrelations in the form of bundles; accounting for uncertainties in the process of evaluating such technologies; integration of administrative, medical, and patient perspectives into the evaluation process; and balancing and handling complexity in the decision-making process.

Higher Sustainability and Lower Opportunistic Behaviour in Healthcare: A New Framework for Performing Hospital-Based Health Technology Assessment

Innovative health technology deployment represents the primary challenge within the sustainability of public health systems. On one hand, new technologies may potentially improve access to care and the quality of services. On the other hand, their rapid evolution and broad implications on existing procedures increase the risk to adopt technologies that are not value for money. As a consequence, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a critical process at each level of the National Health System. Focusing on the organisational level, this paper explores the current practices of Hospital-Based HTA (HB-HTA) in terms of management, control and behaviours of various actors involved. Among several tasks, decision-makers are appointed at managing the conflict of interest around health technology development, that could pave the way for corruption or other misleading behaviours. Accordingly, the purpose of the study is proposing a new strategic framework, named Health Technology Balanced Assessment (HTBA), to foster hospital-based health technology management aimed to align strategy and actions. The conceptual model is developed on three perspectives (clinical, economic and organisational) to make the actors involved in the assessment (clinicians, health professionals, hospital managers and patients) aware of the impact of new technology on the value chain. Besides supporting the decision-making process, such a tool represents support for the internal control system as a whole. By promoting structured evaluation, it increases transparency and accountability of public health organisations. Moreover, in the long run, the framework proposed will be useful to reach selected United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) to enhance the quality of healthcare in the future.

HOSPITAL MANAGERS' NEED FOR INFORMATION ON HEALTH TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS

Objectives: There is growing interest in implementing hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) as a tool to facilitate decision making based on a systematic and multidisciplinary assessment of evidence. However, the decision-making process, including the informational needs of hospital decision makers, is not well described. The objective was to review empirical studies analysing the information that hospital decision makers need when deciding about health technology (HT) investments.

Methods: A systematic review of empirical studies published in English or Danish from 2000 to 2012 was carried out. The literature was assessed by two reviewers working independently. The identified informational needs were assessed with regard to their agreement with the nine domains of EUnetHTA's Core Model.

Results: A total of 2,689 articles were identified and assessed. The review process resulted in 14 relevant studies containing 74 types of information that hospital decision makers found relevant. In addition to information covered by the Core Model, other types of information dealing with political and strategic aspects were identified. The most frequently mentioned types of information in the literature related to clinical, economic and political/strategic aspects. Legal, social, and ethical aspects were seldom considered most important.

Conclusions: Hospital decision makers are able to describe their information needs when deciding on HT investments. The different types of information were not of equal importance to hospital decision makers, however, and full agreement between EUnetHTA's Core Model and the hospital decision-makers’ informational needs was not observed. They also need information on political and strategic aspects not covered by the Core Model.

What Guidance are Economists Given on How to Present Economic Evaluations for Policymakers? A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review health economic guidelines for information on how to present health economic evaluations and consider implications for nontechnical audiences such as policymakers.

METHODS

Electronic databases and supplementary sources were searched for economic evaluation guidelines. Guidelines were critically appraised. Descriptive characteristics, standard formats, supports for nontechnical audiences, presentation approaches, and common reporting recommendations were extracted. Frequencies were tabulated and trends identified.

RESULTS

Thirty-one guidelines were included. Twenty-two guidelines include a standard reporting format with some sample tables and graphs. Common presentation approaches include well-cited tables of data sources, transparent model diagrams and descriptions, disaggregated results, and tabular and graphical displays of sensitivity analyses. Despite most guidelines being funded by policymakers, only five guidelines provided advice on presenting economic evaluations to noneconomists. However, 11 guidelines included a glossary of economic terminology for nontechnical readers. Common concepts that may require further explanation include differences in economic perspectives, appropriateness of time horizons, how economic outcomes such as quality-adjusted life-years relate to their component clinical outcomes, and choice of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Health economists have consistent presentation formats and common reporting elements that should be considered when developing user-friendly explanations for general audiences. These overlap with policymakers' informational needs but may not be sufficient for understanding by nontechnical audiences. Developing presentation formats and tools that incorporate viewpoints of both economists and noneconomists will allow for better application of the results of economic evaluations and enhance the transparency and legitimacy of decision-making processes that are informed by economic evaluations.

A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers

Background

The gap between research and practice or policy is often described as a problem. To identify new barriers of and facilitators to the use of evidence by policymakers, and assess the state of research in this area, we updated a systematic review.

Methods

Systematic review. We searched online databases including Medline, Embase, SocSci Abstracts, CDS, DARE, Psychlit, Cochrane Library, NHSEED, HTA, PAIS, IBSS (Search dates: July 2000 - September 2012). Studies were included if they were primary research or systematic reviews about factors affecting the use of evidence in policy. Studies were coded to extract data on methods, topic, focus, results and population.

Results

145 new studies were identified, of which over half were published after 2010. Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Compared with the original review, a much wider range of policy topics was found. Although still primarily in the health field, studies were also drawn from criminal justice, traffic policy, drug policy, and partnership working. The most frequently reported barriers to evidence uptake were poor access to good quality relevant research, and lack of timely research output. The most frequently reported facilitators were collaboration between researchers and policymakers, and improved relationships and skills. There is an increasing amount of research into new models of knowledge transfer, and evaluations of interventions such as knowledge brokerage.

Conclusions

Timely access to good quality and relevant research evidence, collaborations with policymakers and relationship- and skills-building with policymakers are reported to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence. Although investigations into the use of evidence have spread beyond the health field and into more countries, the main barriers and facilitators remained the same as in the earlier review. Few studies provide clear definitions of policy, evidence or policymaker. Nor are empirical data about policy processes or implementation of policy widely available. It is therefore difficult to describe the role of evidence and other factors influencing policy. Future research and policy priorities should aim to illuminate these concepts and processes, target the factors identified in this review, and consider new methods of overcoming the barriers described.

A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers

BACKGROUND

The gap between research and practice or policy is often described as a problem. To identify new barriers of and facilitators to the use of evidence by policymakers, and assess the state of research in this area, we updated a systematic review.

METHODS

Systematic review. We searched online databases including Medline, Embase, SocSci Abstracts, CDS, DARE, Psychlit, Cochrane Library, NHSEED, HTA, PAIS, IBSS (Search dates: July 2000 - September 2012). Studies were included if they were primary research or systematic reviews about factors affecting the use of evidence in policy. Studies were coded to extract data on methods, topic, focus, results and population.

RESULTS

145 new studies were identified, of which over half were published after 2010. Thirteen systematic reviews were included. Compared with the original review, a much wider range of policy topics was found. Although still primarily in the health field, studies were also drawn from criminal justice, traffic policy, drug policy, and partnership working. The most frequently reported barriers to evidence uptake were poor access to good quality relevant research, and lack of timely research output. The most frequently reported facilitators were collaboration between researchers and policymakers, and improved relationships and skills. There is an increasing amount of research into new models of knowledge transfer, and evaluations of interventions such as knowledge brokerage.

CONCLUSIONS

Timely access to good quality and relevant research evidence, collaborations with policymakers and relationship- and skills-building with policymakers are reported to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence. Although investigations into the use of evidence have spread beyond the health field and into more countries, the main barriers and facilitators remained the same as in the earlier review. Few studies provide clear definitions of policy, evidence or policymaker. Nor are empirical data about policy processes or implementation of policy widely available. It is therefore difficult to describe the role of evidence and other factors influencing policy. Future research and policy priorities should aim to illuminate these concepts and processes, target the factors identified in this review, and consider new methods of overcoming the barriers described.

Use of economic evaluation in decision making: evidence and recommendations for improvement

Information about the value for money of a medicine as derived from an economic evaluation can be used for decision-making purposes by policy makers, healthcare payers, healthcare professionals and pharmaceutical companies. This article illustrates the use of economic evaluation by decision makers and formulates a number of recommendations to enhance the use of such evaluations for decision-making purposes. Over the last decades, there has been a substantial increase in the number of economic evaluations assessing the value for money of medicines. Economic evaluation is used by policy makers and healthcare payers to inform medicine pricing/reimbursement decisions in more and more countries. It is a suitable tool to evaluate medicines and to present information about their value for money to decision makers in a familiar format. In order to fully exploit the use of economic evaluation for decision-making purposes, researchers need to take care to conduct such economic evaluations according to methodologically sound principles. Additionally, researchers need to take into account the decision-making context. They need to identify the various objectives that decision makers pursue and discuss how decision makers can use study findings to attain these objectives. These issues require further attention from researchers, policy makers, healthcare payers, healthcare professionals and pharmaceutical companies with a view to optimizing the use of economic evaluation in decision making.

A European survey of antibiotic management of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection: current clinical opinion and practice

Although the epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) varies across Europe, healthcare-associated MRSA infections are common in many countries. Despite several national guidelines, the approach to treatment of MRSA infections varies across the continent, and there are multiple areas of management uncertainty for which there is little clinical evidence to guide practice. A faculty, convened to explore some of these areas, devised a survey that was used to compare the perspectives of infection specialists from across Europe on the management of MRSA infections with those of the faculty specialists. The survey instrument, a web-based questionnaire, was sent to 3840 registered delegates of the 19th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, held in April 2009. Of the 501 (13%) respondents to the survey, 84% were infection/microbiology specialists and 80% were from Europe. This article reports the survey results from European respondents, and shows a broad range of opinion and practice on a variety of issues pertaining to the management of minor and serious MRSA infections, such as pneumonia, bacteraemia, and skin and soft tissue infections. The issues include changing epidemiology, when and when not to treat, choice of treatment, and duration and route of treatment. The survey identified areas where practice can be improved and where further research is needed, and also identified areas of pan-European consensus of opinion that could be applied to European guidelines for the management of MRSA infection.