Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27912780›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2016

The influence of cost-per-DALY information in health prioritisation and desirable features for a registry: a survey of health policy experts in Vietnam, India and Bangladesh.

Yot Teerawattananon, Sripen Tantivess, Inthira Yamabhai, Nattha Tritasavit, Damian G Walker, Joshua T Cohen, Peter J Neumann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A Call for Open-Source Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Annals of internal medicine · 2017
    Article
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

7 authors.

Yot TeerawattananonHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Sripen TantivessHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand. sripen.t@hitap.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2326-0422
Inthira YamabhaiHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Nattha TritasavitHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Damian G WalkerBill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA.
Joshua T CohenTufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA.
Peter J NeumannTufts Medical Center, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEconomic evaluation has been implemented to inform policy in many areas, including coverage decisions, technology pricing, and the development of clinical practice guidelines. However, there are barriers to evidence-based policy in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that include limited stakeholder awareness, resources and data availability, as well as the lack of capacity to conduct country-specific economic evaluations. This study aims to survey health policy experts' opinions on barriers to use of cost-effectiveness data in these settings and to obtain their advice on how to make a new cost-per-DALY database being developed by Tufts Medical Center more relevant to LMICs. It also identifies the factors influencing transferability.

methodsIn-depth interviews were conducted with 32 participants, including policymakers, technical advisors, and researchers in Health Ministries, universities and non-governmental organisations in Bangladesh, India (New Delhi, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka) and Vietnam.

resultsThe survey revealed that, in all settings, the use of cost-effectiveness information in policy development is lacking, owing to limited knowledge among policymakers and inadequate human resources with health economics expertise in the government sector. Furthermore, researchers in universities do not have close connections with health authorities. In India and Vietnam, the demand for evidence to inform coverage decisions tends to increase as the countries are moving towards universal health coverage. The informants in all countries argue that cost-effectiveness data are useful for decision-makers; however, most of them do not perform data searches by themselves but rely on the information provided by the technical advisor counterparts. Most interviewees were familiar with using evidence from other countries and were also aware of the influences of contextual elements as a limitation of transferability. Finally, strategies to promote the newly developed database include training on basic economic evaluation for policymakers and researchers, and effective communication programs, with support from reputable global agencies.

conclusionsAlthough cost-effectiveness information is recognised as essential in resource allocation, there are several impediments in the generation and use of such evidence to inform priority setting in LMICs. As such, the Cost-per-DALY database should be well-designed and introduced with appropriate promotion strategies so that it will be helpful in real-world policymaking.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDatabases, FactualHealth PolicyHealth PrioritiesPolicy MakingQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRegistriesBangladeshDecision MakingDeveloping CountriesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansIncomeIndiaPersons with DisabilitiesCost per DALYDatabaseEconomic evaluationLow- and middle-income countriesPolicy decisionsRegistry

Identifiers

PMID27912780
PMCPMC5135838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.