ArticleBMC health services research2017
Economic evaluations of health technologies in Dutch healthcare decision-making: a qualitative study of the current and potential use, barriers, and facilitators.
Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an 18-week supervised exercise program in patients treated with autologous stem cell transplantation: results from the EXIST study.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2019Trial
- How Applied Researchers Engage with Methodological Tutorials: A Three-step Test Interview Study of an R Tutorial for Trial-Based Economic Evaluation.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- The role of Spanish clinical pharmacologists in economic evaluations of health technologies.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Clinical decision-making process and distributive justice: The mediating role of economic analysis. Empirical evidence from Italy.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Recent updates in the therapeutic uses of Pembrolizumab: a brief narrative review.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Review
- Assessing unConventional Evidence (ACE) tool: development and content of a tool to assess the strengths and limitations of 'unconventional' source materials.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- "Slow science" for 21st century healthcare: reinventing health service research that serves fast-paced, high-complexity care organisations.Journal of health organization and management · 2021Article
- Barriers and facilitators to conducting economic evaluation studies of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries: a survey of researchers.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Embedding an economist in regional and rural health services to add value and reduce waste by improving local-level decision-making: protocol for the 'embedded Economist' program and evaluation.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Interpretation of trial-based economic evaluations of musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions.Brazilian journal of physical therapyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of economic evaluations in healthcare decision-making can potentially help decision-makers in allocating scarce resources as efficiently as possible. Over a decade ago, the use of such studies was found to be limited in Dutch healthcare decision-making, but their current use is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to provide insight into the current and potential use of economic evaluations in Dutch healthcare decision-making and to identify barriers and facilitators to the use of such studies.
methodsInterviews containing semi-structured and structured questions were conducted among Dutch healthcare decision-makers. Participants were purposefully selected and special efforts were made to include decision-makers working at the macro- (national), meso- (local/regional), and micro-level (patient setting). During the interviews, a topic list was used that was based on the research questions and a literature search, and was developed in consultation with the Dutch National Healthcare Institute. Responses to the semi-structured questions were analyzed using a constant comparative approach. As for the structured questions, participants' definitions of various economic evaluation concepts were scored as either being "correct" or "incorrect" by two researchers, and summary statistics were prepared.
resultsSixteen healthcare decision-makers were interviewed and two health economists. Decision-makers' knowledge of economic evaluations was only modest, and their current use appeared to be limited. Nonetheless, decision-makers recognized the importance of economic evaluations and saw several opportunities for extending their use at the macro- and meso-level, but not at the micro-level. The disparity between the limited use and recognition of the importance of economic evaluations is likely due to the many barriers decision-makers experience preventing their use (e.g. lack of resources, lack of formal willingness-to-pay threshold). Possible facilitators for extending the use of economic evaluations include, amongst others, educating decision-makers and the general population about economic evaluations and presenting economic evaluation results in a clearer and more understandable way.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that the current use and impact of economic evaluations in Dutch healthcare decision-making is limited at best. Therefore, strategies are needed to overcome the barriers that currently prevent economic evaluations from being used extensively.
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.