Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34304743›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Health economic evidence in clinical guidelines in South Africa: a mixed-methods study.

Maryke Wilkinson, Karen J Hofman, Taryn Young, Bey-Marrié Schmidt, Tamara Kredo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Maryke WilkinsonCochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, Cape Town, South Africa. maryke.wilkinson@gmail.com.
Karen J HofmanSAMRC Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science, PRICELESS SA, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Taryn YoungCentre for Evidence-based Health Care, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Global Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, Cape Town, South Africa.
Bey-Marrié SchmidtCochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, Cape Town, South Africa.
Tamara KredoCochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, Cape Town, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence-informed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are useful tools to inform transparent healthcare decision-making. Consideration of health economic evidence (HEE) during CPG development in a structured manner remains a challenge globally and locally. This study explored the views, current practice, training needs and challenges faced by CPG developers in the production and use of HEE for CPGs in South Africa.

methodsThis mixed-methods study comprised an online survey and a focus group discussion. The survey was piloted and subsequently sent to CPG role players - evidence reviewers, CPG panellists, academics involved with training in relevant disciplines like health economics and public health, implementers and funders. The focus group participants hold strategic roles in CPG development and health economic activities nationally. The survey evaluated mean values, measures of variability, and percentages for Likert scales, while narrative components were thematically analysed. Focus group data were manually coded, thematically analysed and verified.

resultsThe survey (n = 55 respondents to 245 surveys distributed) and one focus group (n = 5 participants from 10 people invited) occurred between October 2018 and February 2019. We found the most consistent reason why HEE should inform CPG decisions was 'making more efficient use of limited financial resources'. This was explained by numerous context and methodological barriers. Focus groups participants noted that consideration of complex HEE are not achievable without bolstering skills in applying evidence-based medicine principles. Further concerns include lack of clarity of standard methods; inequitable and opaque topic selection across private and public sectors; inadequate skills of CPG panel members to use HEE; and the ability of health economists to communicate results in accessible ways. Overall, in the absence of clarity about process and methods, politics and interests may drive CPG decisions about which interventions to implement.

conclusionsHEE should ideally be considered in CPG decisions in South Africa. However, this will remain hampered until the CPG community agree on methods and processes for using HEE in CPGs. Focused investment by national government to address the challenges identified by the study is imperative for a better return on investment as National Health Insurance moves forward.

Indexed as

Economics, MedicalEvidence-Based MedicineFederal GovernmentHumansNational Health ProgramsSouth AfricaClinical practice guidelinesEconomic evidenceEvidence-informed decision-makingFocus groupSurvey

Identifiers

PMID34304743
PMCPMC8310693

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.