ArticlePharmacoEconomics2007
Economic evidence at the local level : options for making it more useful.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Resource modelling: the missing piece of the HTA jigsaw?PharmacoEconomics · 2015Article
- Hospital drug and therapeutics committees in Australia: is there a role for economic evaluation at the institutional level?International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2011Article
- Pharmacoeconomic analysis in Saudi Arabia: an overdue agenda item for action.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
- Management of Hospital Formularies in Ontario: Challenges within a Local Health Integration Network.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Like other countries, Australia has had some success in incorporating economic evidence into national healthcare decisions. However, it has been recognised that this coverage does not extend to the local hospital or health region level. An extensive body of research has identified barriers to the use of economic evidence at the local level, leading some commentators to suggest that economic evaluation should only be targeted at national decision-making bodies. Yet, local decision makers in Australia and elsewhere make important choices about the uptake and diffusion of healthcare technologies. We propose a number of interrelated options to address the barriers that currently prohibit the use of economic evaluation by local decision makers in many jurisdictions. These include wider dissemination of user friendly models, inclusion of assessments of the cost impact of interventions on various budgets, and the establishment of an authoritative body that ensures the production of high quality economic models. It is argued that these options can have a significant impact on the way economic evaluations are conducted, reported, disseminated and used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18047389What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.