Cited by 37Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeEvaluation and Performance AssessmentPharmaceutical Economics and Policy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identifying priority technical and context-specific issues in improving the conduct, reporting and use of health economic evaluation in low- and middle-income countries

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of economic evaluation in healthcare policies and decision-making, which is limited in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), might be promoted through the improvement of the conduct and reporting of studies. Although the literature indicates that there are many issues affecting the conduct, reporting and use of this evidence, it is unclear which factors should be prioritised in finding solutions. This study aims to identify the top priority issues that impede the conduct, reporting and use of economic evaluation as well as potential solutions as an input for future research topics by the international Decision Support Initiative and other movements. METHODS: A survey on issues regarding the conduct, reporting and use of economic evaluation as well as on potential solutions was conducted using an online questionnaire among researchers who have experience in conducting economic evaluations in LMICs. The respondents were requested to consider the list of issues provided, rank the most important ones and propose solutions. A scoring system was applied to derive the ranking of difficulties according to researchers' responses. Issues were grouped into technical and context-specific difficulties and analysed separately as a whole and by region. RESULTS: Researchers considered the lack of quality local clinical data, poor reporting and insufficient data to conduct the analysis from the chosen perspective as the most important technical difficulties. On the other hand, the non-integration of economic evaluations into decision-making was considered the most important context-specific issue. Finally, context-specific issues were considered the larger barrier to the use of economic evaluation. CONCLUSION: The technical issues that were considered most important were closely linked with the lack of an appropriately functioning information system as well as the capacity to generate essential contextual information (e.g. data and locally relevant utility values), especially when the methodology is complex. To overcome this, simpler approaches to collect data that yields information of comparable quality to more rigorous methods should be developed. The international community can play a major role through research on methodologies feasible for LMIC settings as well as in building research capacity in countries. Context-specific issues, which were recognised as larger barriers, should be improved in parallel.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12961-018-0280-6

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Research into how context shapes resource use and outcomes is underdeveloped.

    “Research into how context shapes resource use and outcomes, however, is underdeveloped. 460,461”

    From The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on youth mental health (2024) · cites this paper as [460]

    The Background says cost and quality-of-life data are context-specific and that available data may be of poor quality. The Results and Discussion also identify limited local research capacity and difficulty generating reliable local cost and health-related data. These passages support a shortage of context-relevant evidence in LMIC health economic evaluation, but do not specifically assess whether research into how context shapes resource use and outcomes is underdeveloped. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Aspects of the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in low-resource settings create additional barriers to generalisability that can in part be addressed by funding more high-quality economic research in these contexts.

    “As with health care more broadly, aspects of the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in low-resource settings create additional barriers to generalisability 460 that can in part be addressed by funding more high-quality economic research in these contexts.”

    From The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on youth mental health (2024) · cites this paper as [460]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Drummond M, O'Brien B, Stoddard G, Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.
  2. Hauck KS, Peter C, Goddard M. The Economics of Priority Setting for Health Care: A Literature Review. HNP Discussion Paper Series. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2004. · DOI
  3. Augustovski F, Iglesias C, Manca A, Drummond M, Rubinstein A, Marti SG. Barriers to generalizability of health economic evaluations in Latin America and the Caribbean region. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27:919–29. · DOI
  4. Al-Aqeel SA. State of health economic evaluation research in Saudi Arabia: a review. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;4:177–84. · DOI
  5. Teerawattananon Y, Russell S, Mugford M. A systematic review of economic evaluation literature in Thailand: are the data good enough to be used by policy-makers? Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:467–79. · DOI
  6. Griffith UK, Legood R, Pitt C. Comparison of economic evaluation methods across low-income, middle-income and high-income countries: what are the differences and why? Health Econ. 2016;25:29–41. · DOI
  7. Hutubessy R, Chisholm D, Edejer TT. Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2003;1:8. · DOI
  8. Thiboonboon K, Santatiwongchai B, Chantarastapornchit V, Rattanavipapong W, Teerawattananon Y. A systematic review of economic evaluation methodologies between resource-limited and resource-rich countries: a case of rotavirus vaccines. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2016;14:659–72. · DOI
  9. Barbieri M, Drummond M, Rutten F, Cook J, Glick HA, Lis J, Reed SD, Sculpher M, Severens JL. What do international pharmacoeconomic guidelines say about economic data transferability? Value Health. 2010;13:1028–37. · DOI
  10. Ali MK, Magee MJ, Dave JA, Ofotokun I, Tungsiripat M, Jones TK, Levitt NS, Rimland D, Armstrong WS. HIV and metabolic, body, and bone disorders: what we know from low- and middle-income countries. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;67 Suppl 1:S27–39. · DOI
  11. Batt K, Fox-Rushby JA, Castillo-Riquelme M. The costs, effects and cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase coverage of routine immunizations in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review of the grey literature. Bull World Health Organ. 2004;82:689–96.
  12. Deogaonkar R, Hutubessy R, van der Putten I, Evers S, Jit M. Systematic review of studies evaluating the broader economic impact of vaccination in low and middle income countries. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:878. · DOI
  13. Desai PR, Chandwani HS, Rascati KL. Assessing the quality of pharmacoeconomic studies in India: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30:749–62. · DOI
  14. Drummond M, Sculpher M. Common methodological flaws in economic evaluations. Med Care. 2005;43:5–14. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Galarraga O, Colchero MA, Wamai RG, Bertozzi SM. Suppl 1. HIV prevention cost-effectiveness: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2009;9 Suppl 1:S5. · DOI
  16. Gavaza P, Rascati K, Brown C, Lawson K, Mann T. The state of health economic and pharmacoeconomic evaluation research in Zimbabwe: a review. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2008;69:268–85. · DOI
  17. Gavaza P, Rascati KL, Oladapo AO, Khoza S. The state of health economic evaluation research in Nigeria: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28:539–53. · DOI
  18. Geroy LSA. Economic evaluation for first-line anti-hypertensive medicines: applications for the Philippines. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2012;10:14. · DOI
  19. Gomez GB, Borquez A, Case KK, Wheelock A, Vassall A, Hankins C. The cost and impact of scaling up pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness modelling studies. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001401. · DOI
  20. Hutubessy RC, Bendib LM, Evans DB. Critical issues in the economic evaluation of interventions against communicable diseases. Acta Trop. 2001;78:191–206. · DOI
  21. Hyle EP, Naidoo K, Su AE, El-Sadr WM, Freedberg KA. HIV, tuberculosis, and noncommunicable diseases: what is known about the costs, effects, and cost-effectiveness of integrated care? J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;67 Suppl 1:S87–95. · DOI
  22. Jack H, Wagner RG, Petersen I, Thom R, Newton CR, Stein A, Kahn K, Tollman S, Hofman KJ. Closing the mental health treatment gap in South Africa: a review of costs and cost-effectiveness. Glob Health Action. 2014;7:23431. · DOI
  23. Jit M, Demarteau N, Elbasha E, Ginsberg G, Kim J, Praditsitthikorn N, Sinanovic E, Hutubessy R. Human papillomavirus vaccine introduction in low-income and middle-income countries: guidance on the use of cost-effectiveness models. BMC Med. 2011;9:54. · DOI
  24. Johri M, Ako-Arrey D. The cost-effectiveness of preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2011;9:3. · DOI
  25. Kriza C, Hanass-Hancock J, Odame EA, Deghaye N, Aman R, Wahlster P, Marin M, Gebe N, Akhwale W, Wachsmuth I, Kolominsky-Rabas PL. A systematic review of health technology assessment tools in sub-Saharan Africa: methodological issues and implications. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:66. · DOI
  26. Lee KS, Brouwer WB, Lee SI, Koo HW. Introducing economic evaluation as a policy tool in Korea: will decision makers get quality information?: a critical review of published Korean economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:709–21. · DOI
  27. Machado M, Iskedjian M, Einarson TR. Quality assessment of published health economic analyses from South America. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40:943–9. · DOI
  28. Mori AT, Robberstad B. Pharmacoeconomics and its implication on priority-setting for essential medicines in Tanzania: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:110. · DOI
  29. Mulligan JA, Walker D, Fox-Rushby J. Economic evaluations of non-communicable disease interventions in developing countries: a critical review of the evidence base. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2006;4:7. · DOI
  30. Suhrcke M, Boluarte T, Niessen L. A systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions to tackle cardiovascular disease in low- and middle-income countries. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1–13. · DOI
  31. Cooper N, Coyle D, Abrams K, et al. Use of evidence in decision models: an appriasak of health technology assessments in the UK since 1997. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10:245–50. · DOI
  32. Yothasamut J, Tantivess S, Teerawattananon Y. Using economic evaluation in policy decision-making in Asian countries: mission impossible or mission probable? Value Health. 2009;12:S26–30. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Li R, Ruiz F, Culyer AJ, Chalkidou K, Hofman K. Evidence-informed capacity building for setting health priorities in low- and middle-income countries: a framework and recommendations for further research. F1000Res. 2017;6:231. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Luz, A., Santatiwongchai, B., Pattanaphesaj, J., & Teerawattananon, Y.
Affiliations
  • Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (TH)
  • Ministry of Public Health (TH)
Corresponding author
Santatiwongchai, Benjarin
Venue
Health Research Policy and Systems
Published
2018-02-05
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
4-4
ISSN
1478-4505 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2795477621
Cited by
37
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4
FWCI
6.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Research Policy and Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1134345)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Keywords
health economic evaluation, low- and middle-income countries, health decision-making, health information systems, research capacity building, utility value
MeSH terms
Attitude, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Data Collection, Decision Making, Developing Countries, Economics, Medical, Health Policy, Humans, Income, Information Systems, Policy Making, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Research Personnel, Capacity Building, Research Report

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