Search

Objectives: Differences between country-specific guidelines for economic evaluations complicate the execution of international economic evaluations. The aim of this study was to develop cross-European recommendations for the identification, measurement and valuation of resource use and lost productivity in economic evaluations using a Delphi procedure.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify European guidelines on the execution of economic evaluations or costing studies as part of economic evaluations. Guideline recommendations were extracted by two independent reviewers and formed the basis for the first round of the Delphi study, which was conducted among European health economic experts. During three written rounds, consensus (agreement of 67% or higher) was sought on items concerning the identification, measurement and valuation of costs.Results: Recommendations from 18 guidelines were extracted. Consensus among 26 panellists from 17 European countries was reached on 61 of 68 items. The recommendations from the Delphi study are to adopt a societal perspective, to use patient report for measuring resource use and lost productivity, to value both constructs with use of country-specific standardized/unit costs and to use country-specific discounting rates.Conclusion: This study provides consensus-based cross-European recommendations on how to measure and value resource use and lost productivity in economic evaluations. These recommendations are expected to support researchers, healthcare professionals, and policymakers in executing and appraising economic evaluations performed in international contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. To estimate the preferences of osteoporotic patients for medication attributes, and analyse data from seven European countries. Methods. A discrete choice experiment was conducted in Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the UK. Patients were asked to choose repeatedly between two hypothetical unlabelled drug treatments (and an opt-out option) that varied with respect to four attributes: efficacy in reducing the risk of fracture, type of potential common side effects, and mode and frequency of administration. In those countries in which patients contribute to the cost of their treatment directly, a fifth attribute was added: out-of-pocket cost. A mixed logit panel model was used to estimate patients' preferences. Results. In total, 1124 patients completed the experiment, with a sample of between 98 and 257 patients per country. In all countries, patients preferred treatment with higher effectiveness, and 6-monthly subcutaneous injection was always preferred over weekly oral tablets. In five countries, patients also preferred a monthly oral tablet and yearly i.v. injections over weekly oral tablets. In the three countries where the out-of-pocket cost was included as an attribute, lower costs significantly contributed to the treatment preference. Between countries, there were statistically significant differences for 13 out of 42 attribute/level interactions. Conclusion. We found statistically significant differences in patients' preferences for anti-osteoporosis medications between countries, especially for the mode of administration. Our findings emphasized that international treatment recommendations should allow for local adaptation, and that understanding individual preferences is important if we want to improve the quality of clinical care for patients with osteoporosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The patient perspective is increasingly considered in healthcare policy decisions. The use of research on patient preferences seems however limited. Using the available research on patient preferences would make healthcare policy decisions more evidence-based regarding the patient perspective. Objective of this study is to investigate whether and how results of research on patient preferences are incorporated in current procedures for pharmaceutical coverage decisions and clinical practice guideline (CPG) development., Methods: A document analysis on procedure descriptions was combined with case studies. Analyses were performed for five European countries. In the document analysis we systematically checked whether the procedure provides guidance on the systematic use of research on patient preferences, and whether the search and use of research on patient preferences is mentioned in the decision making procedure. In the case studies, which were for exploratory purposes, we scored whether or not research question on patient preferences were formulated, whether or not a search strategy including terms relating to patient preferences was mentioned, whether results of this search strategy were shown and finally, how many references with preference-related terms were included in the reference list of the case., Results: None of the procedures for pharmaceutical coverage decisions mentions the systematic consideration of research on patient preferences. For CPG development, the Scottish procedure refers to a mandatory literature search. In the Netherlands this step is optional. In the case studies for pharmaceutical coverage decisions only one reference related to patient preferences was found. Some of the case studies for CPG included research questions, search strategies and references relating to patient preferences., Conclusions: This study illustrates that systematic consideration of research on patient preferences in pharmaceutical coverage decisions and guideline development is limited, or if taken into account, this is not visible. This contrasts the strong movement towards patient involvement in health care. Several potential barriers may explain the limited use of research on patient preferences.