Abstract

BackgroundEvidence-informed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are useful tools to inform transparent healthcare decision-making. Consideration of health economic evidence (HEE) during CPG development in a structured manner remains a challenge globally and locally. This study explored the views, current practice, training needs and challenges faced by CPG developers in the production and use of HEE for CPGs in South Africa.MethodsThis mixed-methods study comprised an online survey and a focus group discussion. The survey was piloted and subsequently sent to CPG role players - evidence reviewers, CPG panellists, academics involved with training in relevant disciplines like health economics and public health, implementers and funders. The focus group participants hold strategic roles in CPG development and health economic activities nationally. The survey evaluated mean values, measures of variability, and percentages for Likert scales, while narrative components were thematically analysed. Focus group data were manually coded, thematically analysed and verified.ResultsThe survey (n = 55 respondents to 245 surveys distributed) and one focus group (n = 5 participants from 10 people invited) occurred between October 2018 and February 2019. We found the most consistent reason why HEE should inform CPG decisions was ‘making more efficient use of limited financial resources’. This was explained by numerous context and methodological barriers. Focus groups participants noted that consideration of complex HEE are not achievable without bolstering skills in applying evidence-based medicine principles. Further concerns include lack of clarity of standard methods; inequitable and opaque topic selection across private and public sectors; inadequate skills of CPG panel members to use HEE; and the ability of health economists to communicate results in accessible ways. Overall, in the absence of clarity about process and methods, politics and interests may drive CPG decisions about which interventions to implement.ConclusionsHEE should ideally be considered in CPG decisions in South Africa. However, this will remain hampered until the CPG community agree on methods and processes for using HEE in CPGs. Focused investment by national government to address the challenges identified by the study is imperative for a better return on investment as National Health Insurance moves forward.

Highlights

  • Evidence-informed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are useful tools to inform transparent healthcare decision-making

  • Limitations and strengths This study addressed the broad question of the current practice, training needs and challenges faced by those involved with CPGs and health economics in relation to production and use of health economic evidence (HEE) in CPG development

  • One of the earliest methods guides for developing CPGs stated: “health interventions are not free, people are not infinitely rich, and the budgets of [health care] programmes are limited.” [34,35,36]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Evidence-informed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are useful tools to inform transparent healthcare decision-making. This study explored the views, current practice, training needs and challenges faced by CPG developers in the production and use of HEE for CPGs in South Africa. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that are informed by systematic reviews of the available clinical and economic evidence are useful tools to aid transparent healthcare decision-making [1, 2]. In South Africa, the Essential Drugs Programme at the National Department of Health supports the creation and maintenance of the national Essential Medicines List (EML) by coordinating the production of systematic reviews and costing analyses, including Health Technology Assessments (HTAs), and convening ministerialappointed committees to appraise evidence and make decisions regarding the selection/deselection of technologies to the EML. The clinical and economic evidence informing private sector formularies, and by extension treatment protocols, are variable, with HTA processes and evidence requirements differing significantly between organisations

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call