Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16277545›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2005

Economic evaluations of healthcare programmes and decision making: the influence of economic evaluations on different healthcare decision-making levels.

Marieke E van Velden, Johan L Severens, Annoesjka Novak

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Informing evidence-based medicine for opioid use disorder using pharmacoeconomic studies.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marieke E van VeldenDepartment of Health Organization Policy and Economics, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
Johan L Severens
Annoesjka Novak

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Given the potential role of economic information in healthcare decision making, it is of interest to assess its influence on decisions at a national or regional level (macro level), at a healthcare facility level (meso level) and at the healthcare provider level (micro level). This literature review summarises 36 empirical studies that examined the influence of economic evaluations on these three healthcare decision-making levels. Economic evaluations are considered useful and important; however, their direct influence on decision making (instrumental use) is moderate, especially at the macro and micro levels. A major influence was observed at the meso level, leading to the conclusion that economic evaluations have the most pronounced influence on decision making within healthcare organisations. However, unexpectedly, our literature search did not reveal an empirical study analysing the considerable influence of economic evaluations on decisions by the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence in the UK. Our findings indicate that results of economic evaluations cannot be considered the dominant decision criterion for healthcare decision makers at either the macro, meso or micro levels. Enlightenment use (where scientific evidence provides a background of information, ideas and concepts that affect the way policy makers view problems and solutions) of economic evaluations in decision making remains to be proven.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEvaluation Studies as TopicDelivery of Health CareHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.