ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2024
Validation of the PECUNIA reference unit costs templates in Spain: a useful tool for multi-national economic evaluations of health technologies.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe PECUNIA Project was funded by the H2020 programme in which 10 partners from six countries participated. The aim was to develop standardized, harmonized and validated methods and tools to calculate costs in different sectors (such as health and social care, education among others), with the purpose of facilitating comparability of economic evaluations of health technologies across European countries. In this paper we report the first validation of the developed reference unit cost templates in Spain.
methodsThe evaluation of the PECUNIA Reference Unit Cost (RUC) Templates involved usability, transferability and feasibility assessment. Applicability tests were performed to estimate the cost of a selection of 15 resource items by means of the RUC templates in Spain and in four Spanish regions. External validation involved comparison with existing unit costs.
resultsIt was possible to estimate the cost of five services (dental care and general practitioner in the Canary Islands, general practitioner in Spain [tariffs], health-related day care centre and education services provided in a special education school in the Basque Country), car vandalism as an example of potential health-related consequences, and informal care in Spain. The templates were feasible although data completeness depended on the type of data needed to estimate the costs. The templates are transferable across countries although comparability depends on the services available in each jurisdiction.
conclusionsThe PECUNIA RUC Templates are free and feasible tools to estimate comparable reference unit costs across countries. Although more validation exercises are needed, they seem useful tools to perform robust multi-national economic evaluations and increase the transferability of cost-effectiveness studies of health technologies in Europe. However, they cannot compensate for the lack of data across jurisdictions.
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.