Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36622541›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2023

Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM.

Irina Pokhilenko, Luca M M Janssen, Aggie T G Paulus, Ruben M W A Drost, William Hollingworth, Joanna C Thorn, Sian Noble, Judit Simon, Claudia Fischer, Susanne Mayer and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. In Search for Comparability: The PECUNIA Reference Unit Costs for Health and Social Care Services in Europe.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

17 authors.

Irina PokhilenkoDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. i.pokhilenko@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6390-2851
Luca M M JanssenDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0184-3742
Aggie T G PaulusDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2086-6106
Ruben M W A DrostDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7428-040X
William HollingworthDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0840-6254
Joanna C ThornDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8962-2428
Sian NobleDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8011-0722
Judit SimonDepartment of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9279-8627
Claudia FischerDepartment of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7574-8097
Susanne MayerDepartment of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4448-0478
Luis Salvador-CarullaMental Health Policy Unit, Faculty of Health, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5742-9866
Alexander KonnopkaDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Medical Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2605-3456
Leona Hakkaart van RoijenErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0635-7388
Valentin BrodszkyDepartment of Health Policy, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6095-2295
A-La ParkDepartment of Health Policy, Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4704-4874
Silvia M A A EversDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1026-570X
PECUNIA Group

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 779292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeasuring objective resource-use quantities is important for generating valid cost estimates in economic evaluations. In the absence of acknowledged guidelines, measurement methods are often chosen based on practicality rather than methodological evidence. Furthermore, few resource-use measurement (RUM) instruments focus on the measurement of resource use in multiple societal sectors and their development process is rarely described. Thorn and colleagues proposed a stepwise approach to the development of RUM instruments, which has been used for developing cost questionnaires for specific trials. However, it remains unclear how this approach can be translated into practice and whether it is applicable to the development of generic self-reported RUM instruments and instruments measuring resource use in multiple sectors. This study provides a detailed description of the practical application of this stepwise approach to the development of a multi-sectoral RUM instrument developed within the ProgrammE in Costing, resource use measurement and outcome valuation for Use in multi-sectoral National and International health economic evaluAtions (PECUNIA) project.

methodsFor the development of the PECUNIA RUM, the methodological approach was based on best practice guidelines. The process included six steps, including the definition of the instrument attributes, identification of cost-driving elements in each sector, review of methodological literature and development of a harmonized cross-sectorial approach, development of questionnaire modules and their subsequent harmonization.

resultsThe selected development approach was, overall, applicable to the development of the PECUNIA RUM. However, due to the complexity of the development of a multi-sectoral RUM instrument, additional steps such as establishing a uniform methodological basis, harmonization of questionnaire modules and involvement of a broader range of stakeholders (healthcare professionals, sector-specific experts, health economists) were needed.

conclusionThis is the first study that transparently describes the development process of a generic multi-sectoral RUM instrument in health economics and provides insights into the methodological aspects and overall validity of its development process.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelCost-Benefit AnalysisEuropeHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID36622541
PMCPMC9931843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.