Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28126005›Full record

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.

Kitty J Roseboom, Johanna M van Dongen, Emile Tompa, Maurits W van Tulder, Judith E Bosmans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Kitty J RoseboomDepartment of Health Sciences and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Johanna M van DongenDepartment of Health Sciences and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.m.van.dongen@vu.nl.
Emile TompaInstitute for Work & Health, 481 University Avenue Suite 800, Toronto, ON, M5G 2E9, Canada.
Maurits W van TulderDepartment of Health Sciences and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Judith E BosmansDepartment of Health Sciences and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Decision Making, OrganizationalAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsQualitative ResearchTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalBarriers and facilitatorsEconomic evaluationHealthcare decision-makingUse

Identifiers

PMID28126005
PMCPMC5270365

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.