ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2014
Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden.
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Evidence, Emotion and Eminence: A Qualitative and Evaluative Analysis of Doctors' Skills in Macroallocation.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2019Article
- Effects of a multifaceted intervention QI program to improve ICU performance.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Quality Assessment of Published Articles in Iranian Journals Related to Economic Evaluation in Health Care Programs Based on Drummond's Checklist: A Narrative Review.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2017Review
- Including Both Costs and Effects--The Challenge of Using Cost-Effectiveness Data in National-Level Policy-Making: A Response to Recent Commentaries.International journal of health policy and management · 2015Article
- Incorporating cost-effectiveness data in a fair process for priority setting efforts Comment on "Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden".International journal of health policy and management · 2015Article
- The use (or rather the non-use) of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions - are we underestimating the barriers to using health economics in real world priority setting decisions?: Comment on "Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden".International journal of health policy and management · 2015Article
- Lonely at the top and stuck in the middle? The ongoing challenge of using cost-effectiveness information in priority setting : Comment on "Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden".International journal of health policy and management · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe inclusion of cost-effectiveness data, as a basis for priority setting rankings, is a distinguishing feature in the formulation of the Swedish national guidelines. Guidelines are generated with the direct intent to influence health policy and support decisions about the efficient allocation of scarce healthcare resources. Certain medical conditions may be given higher priority rankings i.e. given more resources than others, depending on how serious the medical condition is. This study investigated how a decision-making group, the Priority Setting Group (PSG), used cost-effectiveness data in ranking priority setting decisions in the national guidelines for heart diseases.
methodsA qualitative case study methodology was used to explore the use of such data in ranking priority setting healthcare decisions. The study addressed availability of cost-effectiveness data, evidence understanding, interpretation difficulties, and the reliance on evidence. We were also interested in the explicit use of data in ranking decisions, especially in situations where economic arguments impacted the reasoning behind the decisions.
resultsThis study showed that cost-effectiveness data was an important and integrated part of the decision-making process. Involvement of a health economist and reliance on the data facilitated the use of cost-effectiveness data. Economic arguments were used both as a fine-tuning instrument and a counterweight for dichotomization. Cost-effectiveness data were used when the overall evidence base was weak and the decision-makers had trouble making decisions due to lack of clinical evidence and in times of uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness data were also used for decisions on the introduction of new expensive medical technologies.
conclusionCost-effectiveness data matters in decision-making processes and the results of this study could be applicable to other jurisdictions where health economics is implemented in decision-making. This study contributes to knowledge on how cost-effectiveness data is used in actual decision-making, to ensure that the decisions are offered on equal terms and that patients receive medical care according their needs in order achieve maximum benefit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.