Improving the quality of economic evaluation in health in low- and middle-income countries: where are we now?

The Checklist for Standard Methodological Requirements and Reporting of Economic Evaluation of Medicines in Slovakia

OBJECTIVES

We have developed a scientifically well-grounded, methodological, and reporting checklist for economic evaluation (EE) of medicines in the Slovak health technology assessment process, which serves as a supplement to the Slovak pharmacoeconomic guidelines.

METHODS

The checklist was developed using an iterative process in which items were generated and gradually added to the baseline checklist based on shortcomings identified in an analysis of Slovak EEs, using relevant published checklists, and Slovak, as well as international, methodological guidance that was identified in the systematic literature review. The selection of checklist recommendations, their clarity, and relevance to the Slovak setting were validated in the online survey.

RESULTS

From the sample of 151 price and reimbursement submissions published between January 2018 and July 2021, almost half of them (n = 73) received at least 1 request from the Ministry of Healthcare to justify or modify the methodology used in the EE; and in 18 proceedings, a negative opinion was issued because of shortcomings identified in the EE. The 25-items preliminary checklist, resulting from an iterative working process, has been validated in an online survey conducted among members of ISPOR Chapter Slovakia. After incorporating relevant comments, the final proposal for the Slovak checklist consists of 55 recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The research represented the first attempt to create a Slovak EE checklist, which serves as a part of ISPOR Slovakia pharmacoeconomic guidelines. Implementation of the checklist allows checking whether EE meets legislative and methodological requirements and thus helps in improving the appropriateness and standardization of EEs in Slovakia.

Economic evaluation of self-help group interventions for health in LMICs: a scoping review

This scoping review aims to identify and critically appraise published economic evaluations of self-help group (SHG) interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that seek to improve health and potentially also non-health outcomes. Through a systematic search of MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), EMBASE Ovid, PsychINFO, EconLit (Ovid) and Global Index Medicus, we identified studies published between 2014 and 2020 that were based in LMICs, included at least a health outcome, estimated intervention costs and reported the methods used. We critically analysed whether the methods employed can meaningfully inform decisions by ministries of health and other sectors, including donors, regarding whether to fund such interventions, and prioritized the aspects of evaluations that support decision-making and cross-sectoral decision-making especially. Nine studies met our inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials were the most commonly used vehicle to collect data and to establish a causal effect across studies. While all studies clearly stated one or more perspectives justifying the costs and effects that are reported, few papers clearly laid out the decision context or the decision maker(s) informed by the study. The latter is required to inform which costs, effects and opportunity costs are relevant to the decision and should be included in the analysis. Costs were typically reported from the provider or health-care sector perspective although other perspectives were also employed. Four papers reported outcomes in terms of a generic measure of health. Contrary to expectation, no studies reported outcomes beyond health. Our findings suggest limitations in the extent to which published studies are able to inform decision makers around the value of implementing SHG interventions in their particular context. Funders can make better informed decisions when evidence is presented using a cross-sectoral framework.

Developing a tool to assess the skills to perform a health technology assessment

Background

Health technology assessment (HTA) brings together evidence from various disciplines while using explicit methods to assess the value of health technologies. In resource-constrained settings, there is a growing demand to measure and develop specialist skills, including those for HTA, to aid the implementation of Universal Healthcare Coverage. The purpose of this study was twofold: a) to find validated tools for the assessment of the technical capacity to conduct a HTA, and if none were found, to develop a tool, and b) to describe experiences of its pilot.

Methods

First, a mapping review identified tools to assess the skills to conduct a HTA. A medical librarian conducted a comprehensive search in four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ERIC). Then, incorporating results from the mapping and following an iterative process involving stakeholders and experts, we developed a HTA skills assessment tool. Finally, using an online platform to gather and analyse responses, in collaboration with our institutional partner, we piloted the tool in Ghana, and sought feedback on their experiences.

Results

The database search yielded 3871 records; fifteen those were selected based on a priori criteria. These records were published between 2003 and 2018, but none covered all technical skills to conduct a HTA. In the absence of an instrument meeting our needs, we developed a HTA skill assessment tool containing four sections (general information, core and soft skills, and future needs). The tool was designed to be administered to a broad range of individuals who would potentially contribute to the planning, delivery and evaluation of HTA. The tool was piloted with twenty-three individuals who completed the skills assessment and shared their initial impressions of the tool.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive tool enabling the assessment of technical skills to conduct a HTA. This tool allows teams to understand where their individual strengths and weakness lie. The tool is in the early validation phases and further testing is needed.

Trial registration

Not applicable.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01562-4.