The public health benefit and burden of mass drug administration programs in Vietnamese schoolchildren: Impact of mebendazole

Methods to Include Environmental Impacts in Health Economic Evaluations and Health Technology Assessments: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

The environmental impacts of healthcare are important factors that should be considered during health technology assessments. This study aims to summarize the evidence that exists about methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments.

METHODS

We identified records for screening using an existing scoping review and a systematic search of academic databases and gray literature up to September 2023. We screened the identified records for eligibility and extracted data using a narrative synthesis approach. The review was conducted following the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.

RESULTS

We identified 2898 records and assessed the full text of 114, of which 54 were included in this review. Ten methods were identified to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments. Methods included converting environmental impacts to dollars or disability-adjusted life years and including them in a cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-benefit analysis, calculating an incremental carbon footprint effectiveness ratio or incremental carbon footprint cost ratio, incorporating impacts as one criteria of a multi-criteria decision analysis, and freely considering impacts during health technology assessment deliberation processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments exist but have not been tested for widespread use by health technology assessment agencies. Further research and implementation work is needed to determine which method can best aid decision makers to choose low environmental impact healthcare interventions.

Incorporating environmental and sustainability considerations into health technology assessment and clinical and public health guidelines: a scoping review

Healthcare systems account for a substantial proportion of global carbon emissions and contribute to wider environmental degradation. This scoping review aimed to summarize the evidence currently available on incorporation of environmental and sustainability considerations into health technology assessments (HTAs) and guidelines to support the National In stitute for Health and Care Excellence and analogous bodies in other jurisdictions developing theirown methods and processes. Overall, 7,653 articles were identified, of which 24 were included in this review and split into three key areas - HTA (10 studies), healthcare guidelines (4 studies), and food and dietary guidelines (10 studies). Methodological reviews discussed the pros and cons of different approaches to integrate environmental considerations into HTAs, including adjustments to conventional cost-utility analysis (CUA), cost-benefit analysis, and multicriteria decision analysis. The case studies illustrated the challenges of putting this into practice, such as lack of disaggregated data to evaluate the impact of single technologies and difficulty in conducting thorough life cycle assessments that consider the full environmental effects. Evidence was scant on the incorporation of environmental impacts in clinical practice and public health guidelines. Food and dietary guidelines used adapted CUA based on life cycle assessments, simulation modeling, and qualitative judgments made by expert panels. There is uncertainty on how HTA and guideline committees will handle trade-offs between health and environment, especially when balancing environmental harms that fall largely on society with health benefits for individuals. Further research is warranted to enable integration of environmental considerations into HTA and clinical and public health guidelines.

Quantifying the handprint-Footprint balance into a single score: The example of pharmaceuticals

Life Cycle Assessment typically focuses on the footprint of products and services, expressed on three Areas of Protection (AoP): Human Health, Ecosystems and Resources. While the handprint is often expressed qualitatively, quantified handprints have recently been compared directly to the footprint concerning one AoP: Human Health. We propose to take this one step further by simultaneously comparing the quantified handprint and footprint on all AoPs through normalization and weighting of the results towards a single score. We discuss two example cases of a pharmaceutical treatment: mebendazole to treat soil-transmitted helminthiases and paliperidone palmitate to treat schizophrenia. Each time, treatment is compared to 'no treatment'. The footprint of health care is compared to the handprint of improved patient health. The handprint and footprint were normalized separately. To include sensitivity in the normalization step we applied four sets of external normalization factors for both handprint (Global Burden of Disease) and footprint (ReCiPe and PROSUITE). At the weighting step we applied 26 sets of panel weighting factors from three sources. We propose the Relative Sustainability Benefit Rate (RSBR) as a new metric to quantify the relative difference in combined handprint and footprint single score between two alternatives. When only considering the footprint, the first case study is associated with an increased single score burden of treatment compared to 'no treatment', while in the second case study treatment reduces the single score burden by 41.1% compared to 'no treatment'. Also including the handprint provided new insights for the first case study, now showing a decrease of 56.4% in single score burden for treatment compared to 'no treatment'. For the second case study the reduction of single score burden was confirmed as the handprint burden was also decreased because of treatment by 9.9%, reinforcing the findings.