Do Health-Care Decision Makers Find Economic Evaluations Useful? The Findings of Focus Group Research in UK Health Authorities
Open accessAbstract
Objectives The impact of economic evaluation studies on health-care decision makers has been shown to be rather limited. However, there is an increasing requirement for the cost-effectiveness of health-care interventions to be considered in formulating and implementing guidelines for clinical practice. This paper reports the findings of recent focus group research among UK health authorities, which examined the usefulness of published economic evaluations within the decision-making processes. The findings are presented and discussed in light of other studies that have addressed this issue.Methods Focus group research was conducted with decision makers from a sample of two UK health authorities using the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) as a research vehicle to locate and report the findings of relevant economic studies. The study sample was initially invited to respond to questionnaires exploring the usefulness of published economic evaluations in the decision-making process and to outline particular topics that it felt would benefit from similar economic evidence. Following this, a detailed search was undertaken to retrieve structured NHS EED abstracts on these topics such that the usefulness and limitations of economic evaluations to decision making could be determined.Results Decision makers generally recognized the usefulness and necessity of published economic evaluations in informing their decision-making processes. However, the value of studies was often limited because of the poor generalizability of results, the narrowness of research questions, and the lack of methodological rigor common to many published studies. A total of 237 NHS EED full abstracts were retrieved in the specified areas of interest, which, within specified caveats, were generally found to be useful as decision-making tools. There was a general consensus among decision makers in favor of developing a quality-scoring system for studies, thereby going beyond the critical summaries given in NHS EED.Conclusions Decision makers value information on cost-effectiveness as well as effectiveness alone, but methodological improvements are necessary to increase the reliability of economic studies. A quality-scoring system for published studies would be a useful development as a filtering mechanism for decision makers but would raise a number of challenges for health economists.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Economic evaluations are one of many important factors in decision-making about EBP use.
“Research from varied global contexts consistently shows that economic evaluations are one of many important factors in decision-making about EBP use [16–18].”
From Translating economic evaluations into financing strategies for implementing evidence-based practices (2021) · cites this paper as [17]
Cites
Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes
Wilson, S. (1987) · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.41.4.355-a · Cited by 4,312 · see citing works
The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making.
Hoffmann, C. (2000) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/s0168-8510(00)00076-2 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Self-citationThe use of economic evaluation in health care: Australian decision makers' perceptions
Ross, J. (1995) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/0168-8510(94)00671-7 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Economic evaluation under managed competition: Evidence from the U.K.
Drummond, M., Cooke, J., & Walley, T. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00398-x · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Self-citationResearch into the use of health economics in decision making in the United Kingdom—Phase II
Duthie, T., Trueman, P., Chancellor, J. V. M., & Diez, L. (1999) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/s0168-8510(98)00057-8 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Hospital pharmacy decisions, cost containment, and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis
Sloan, F. A., Whetten‐Goldstein, K., & Wilson, A. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00393-0 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
The Influence of Economic Evaluation Studies on Health Care Decision-Making: A European Survey
von der Schulenburg, J. M. G. (2000) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Evaluating the BMJ Guidelines for Economic Submissions
Jefferson, T., Smith, R., Yee, Y., Drummond, M., Pratt, M., & Gale, R. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.275 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Self-citationThe View From Managed Care Pharmacy
Luce, B. R., Lyles, C. A., & Rentz, A. M. (1996) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.15.4.168 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
The U.K. NHS ECONOMIC EVALUATION DATABASE
Nixon, J., Stoykova, B., Glanville, J., Christie, J., Drummond, M., & Kleijnen, J. (2000) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462300102016 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Self-citationProbabilistic safety assessment and management
Tichý, M. (1993) · Structural Safety · doi:10.1016/0167-4730(93)90019-w · Cited by 44 · see citing works
The NHS economic evaluation database
Gray, J. M., & Donald, A. (1997) · Evidence-based Healthcare · doi:10.1016/s1462-9410(05)80055-5 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Villar, F. J. A., Figueras, M. N. R., & Rovira, J. (2000) · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Costing behavioral interventions: a practical guide to enhance translation
Ritzwoller, D. P., Sukhanova, A., Gaglio, B., & Glasgow, R. E. (2009) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12160-009-9088-5 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
Translating economic evaluations into financing strategies for implementing evidence-based practices
Dopp, A. R., Kerns, S. E. U., Panattoni, L., Ringel, J. S., Eisenberg, D., Powell, B. J., Low, R., & Raghavan, R. (2021) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-021-01137-9 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Merlo, G., Page, K., Zardo, P., & Graves, N. (2019) · Applied Health Economics and Health Policy · doi:10.1007/s40258-019-00477-4 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hoffmann, C., Stoykova, B. A., Nixon, J., Glanville, J. M., Misso, K., & Drummond, M. F.
- Affiliations
- University of York (GB)
- Venue
- Value in Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 71-78
- ISSN
- 1098-3015 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4323238629
- Cited by
- 118
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 17.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Value in Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Keywords
- economic evaluation, healthcare decision-making, cost-effectiveness, health authorities, methodological quality, generalizability of study results
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Making, Organizational, Health Policy, Health Priorities, Health Services Research, Humans, State Medicine, Focus Groups
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review