Economic Evaluations Of Health Interventions Research Articles

On spillovers in economic evaluations: definition, mapping review and research agenda.

An important issue in economic evaluations is determining whether all relevant impacts are considered, given the perspective chosen for the analysis. Acknowledging that patients are not isolated individuals has important implications in this context. Increasingly, the term "spillovers" is used to label consequences of health interventions on others. However, a clear definition of spillovers is lacking, and as a result, the scope of the concept remains unclear. In this study, we aim to clarify the concept of spillovers by proposing a definition applicable in health economic evaluations. To illustrate the implications of this definition, we highlight the diversity of potential spillovers through an expanded impact inventory and conduct a mapping review that outlines the evidence base for the different types of spillovers. In the context of economic evaluations of health interventions, we define spillovers as all impacts from an intervention on all parties or entities other than the users of the intervention under evaluation. This definition encompasses a broader range of potential costs and effects, beyond informal caregivers and family members. The expanded impact inventory enables a systematic approach to identifying broader impacts of health interventions. The mapping review shows that the relevance of different types of spillovers is context-specific. Some spillovers are regularly included in economic evaluations, although not always recognised as such, while others are not. A consistent use of the term "spillovers", improved measurement of these costs and effects, and increased transparency in reporting them are still necessary. To that end, we propose a research agenda.

Considering patient perspectives in economic evaluations of health interventions.

Current guidelines for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of health interventions commonly recommend the use of a payer and/or a societal perspective. This raises the concern that the resulting reimbursement decision may overlook the full spectrum of impacts and equity considerations. In this paper, we argue that a potential solution is to supplement a societal- or payer-perspective economic evaluation with an additional evaluation accounting for exclusively the patient perspective. We present five categories of health interventions for which a patient-perspective analysis may be informative including those (1) that cross the definitional boundary between drugs and non-drug technologies; (2) affect patient adherence to protocol; (3) represent revolutionary treatments for genetic disorders; (4) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio involving slightly less effective, but substantially less costly, than the current standard; and (5) have been previously approved for funding but now being targeted for potential delisting or disinvestment. Real-world examples are discussed in detail. Lived experience individuals were invited to provide vignettes. Discussions are provided regarding how to incorporate patient inputs to improve patient-centered decision-making.

EE481 A Systematic Literature Review of Modeling Approaches in Economic Evaluations of Health Interventions for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

A systematic literature review was performed to examine economic modeling approaches utilized in published economic evaluations (EEs) of health interventions for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

EE25 A Systematic Literature Review to Assess the Modeling Approaches in Economic Evaluations of Health Interventions for Adult Binge Eating Disorders

The purpose of this research was to identify and summarize different modeling approaches used in published economic evaluations (EEs) of adult patients with binge eating disorders (BED).

Test–retest reliability of the Cost for Patients Questionnaire

To investigate the test-retest reliability of the Costs for Patients Questionnaire (CoPaQ). Through an online survey, individuals were invited to participate in a two-step study to assess the test-retest reliability of the CoPaQ. Participants to the first step were invited to complete the questionnaire a second time 2weeks after. Reliability was assessed by calculating Cohen's Kappa coefficients and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for discrete and continuous data, respectively. A sensitivity analysis was carried out. From a total of 1,200 participants who completed the first test, 403 completed the second test. The ICC varied from -0.00 to 0.98 with poor, moderate, good, and excellent results. The Kappa coefficients varied from -0.004 to 0.65 and were poor, slight, fair, moderate, and substantial. The sensitivity analysis showed the median value of ICC and Kappa coefficients for each category before and after the outliers' exclusion. The median value of ICC changed from 0.30 (before) to 0.70 (after), and from 0.12 (before) to 0.04 (after), respectively, for each category. The median value of the Cohen's Kappa coefficient increased from 0.44 (before) to 0.46 (after) and decreased from 0.32 (before) to 0.30 (after), respectively. Test-retest reliability results indicated that the CoPaQ has a moderate reliability in terms of ICC and Kappa coefficients. The moderate reliability observed gives additional support for the applicability of this tool in economic evaluations of health interventions. Additional studies including on other properties and a cultural adaptation could further enhance the use of the tool.

Neutral theory: applicability and neutrality of using generic health-related quality of life tools in diseases or conditions where specific tools are available

BackgroundHealth-related quality of life (HRQoL) tools are limited by the indicators included in the construct and variation in interpretation by different researchers. Neutral Theory describes the ideal construct that includes all relevant indicators and, therefore, complete accuracy, or neutrality. Neutral Theory can thereby provide the framework to develop or test constructs. To assess the application of Neutral Theory, the neutrality of generic tools (SF-36 and EQ-5D) at measuring HRQoL was compared to disease/condition-specific tools, with the latter considered surrogates for the Neutral construct.MethodsFull descriptions of all disease/condition-specific HRQoL tools published on PubMed (to 01-Jul-19) were sourced. For each tool, the number of items with and without a direct match within the SF-36 and EQ-5D was recorded and the sensitivity/specificity calculated.ResultsThe SF-36 and EQ-5D did not achieve a sensitivity/specificity both > 50% against any of the 163 disease/condition-specific tools identified. At 20% prevalence of poor HRQoL, the false positive rate (FPR) was > 75% for all but two tools against the SF-36 and six tools against the EQ-5D. Increasing poor HRQoL to 80%, 47 tools for the SF-36 and 48 tools for the EQ-5D had a FPR < 50%. For rare disease tools (< 1/2000 population; n = 17), sensitivity/specificity ranged from 0 to 40%/5–31% for the SF-36 and 0–22%/29–100% for the EQ-5D. For non-rare (n = 75) and symptom-specific tools (n = 71) sensitivity/specificity was: 0–100%/0–100% (SF-36) and 0–50%/0–100% (EQ-5D); and 0–60%/0–19% (SF-36) and 0–25%/0–100% (EQ-5D), respectively. No concordance was recorded for 18% (2/11) of results from studies of rare disease tools versus the SF-36 (no data vs EQ-5D). For non-rare, disease-specific tools, results were discordant for 30% (25/84) and 35% (23/65) of studies against the SF-36 and EQ-5D, respectively. For symptom-specific tools, corresponding results were 36% (24/66) and 16% (5/31).ConclusionsGeneric HRQoL tools appear poorly correlated with disease/condition-specific tools, which indicates that adoption of Neutral Theory in the development and assessment of HRQoL tools could improve their relevance, accuracy, and utility in economic evaluations of health interventions.

Mapping the evidence on health equity considerations in economic evaluations of health interventions: a scoping review protocol

BackgroundEquity in health has become an important policy agenda around the world, prompting health economists to advance methods to enable the inclusion of equity in economic evaluations. Among the methods that have been proposed to explicitly include equity are the weighting analysis, equity impact analysis, and equity trade-off analysis. This is a new development and a comprehensive overview of trends and concepts of health equity in economic evaluations is lacking. Thus, our objective is to map the current state of the literature with respect to how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions reported in the academic and gray literature.MethodsWe will conduct a scoping review to identify and map evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions. We will search relevant electronic, gray literature and key journals. We developed a search strategy using text words and Medical Subject Headings terms related to health equity and economic evaluations of health interventions. Articles retrieved will be uploaded to reference manager software for screening and data extraction. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles based on their titles and abstracts for inclusion, and then will independently screen a full text to ascertain final inclusion. A simple numerical count will be used to quantify the data and a content analysis will be conducted to present the narrative; that is, a thematic summary of the data collected.DiscussionThe results of this scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence on how health equity is considered in economic evaluations of health interventions and its research gaps. It will also provide key information to decision-makers and policy-makers to understand ways to include health equity into the prioritization of health interventions when aiming for a more equitable distribution of health resources.Systematic review registrationThis protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) Registry on August 14, 2019 (https://osf.io/9my2z/registrations).

PCN144 ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS OF CANCER INTERVENTIONS IN SPAIN: LITERATURE REVIEW

In the last 2 years a third of the reimbursed drugs in Spain were new antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents. The aim of this study was to review the literature on economic evaluations of health interventions for solid and haematologic tumours in Spain. A literature search of economic evaluations was performed in ICER-eSalud, a database that summarizes cost-effectiveness (CEAs) and cost-utility analyses (CUAs) published in the Spanish setting. Publications were obtained from Spanish and international databases, including Agencias Españolas de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias, IBECS, PharmacoEconomics Spanish Research Articles, Pubmed, Science Direct, and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Studies published from 2008 to 2018 and that evaluated interventions for oncology were included in the analysis. Fifty-two studies of health interventions in different types of tumours met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 28 (54%) analysed pharmaceutical products, 9 (17%) public health programs, 7 (13%) the delivery of care, 5 (10%) surgical procedures, and 3 (6%) medical devices. Among pharmaceutical products, the most frequently evaluated tumours were breast cancer (n=5), non-small cell lung cancer (n=3), colorectal cancer (n=3) and follicular lymphoma (n=3). A total of 31 incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were found. The median ICUR was €21,069/QALY (range min-max: 295-132,198) and 23% of the interventions were dominant (greater utility and lower costs) or cost-saving. At a threshold of €21,000/QALY, approximately 61% of the interventions were cost-effective. Most of the studies evaluated the addition of targeted therapies for cancer in current treatments. Approximately 60% of cancer interventions evaluated were cost-effective in Spain under a threshold of €21,000/QALY. Targeted therapies are emerging approaches for cancer treatment. Thus, the introduction of new drugs should be accompanied by an increase in the number of economic evaluations related to oncology.

Alcohol consumption\u2019s attributable disease burden and cost-effectiveness of targeted public health interventions: a systematic review of mathematical models

BackgroundAround 6% of total deaths are related to alcohol consumption worldwide. Mathematical models are important tools to estimate disease burden and to assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions to address this burden.MethodsWe carried out a systematic review on models, searching main health literature databases up to July 2017. Pairs of reviewers independently selected, extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. We selected those models exploring: a) disease burden (main metrics being attributable deaths, disability-adjusted life years, quality-adjusted life years) or b) economic evaluations of health interventions or policies, based on models including the aforementioned outcomes. We grouped models into broad families according to their common central methodological approach.ResultsOut of 4295 reports identified, 63 met our inclusion criteria and were categorized in three main model families that were described in detail: 1) State transition -i.e Markov- models, 2) Life Table-based models and 3) Attributable fraction-based models. Most studies pertained to the latter one (n = 29, 48.3%). A few miscellaneous models could not be framed into these families.ConclusionsOur findings can be useful for future researchers and decision makers planning to undertake alcohol-related disease burden or cost-effectiveness studies. We found several different families of models. Countries interested in adopting relevant public health measures may choose or adapt the one deemed most convenient, based on the availability of existing data at the local level, burden of work, and public health and economic outcomes of interest.

On discount rates for economic evaluations in global health.

Choices on discount rates have important implications for the outcomes of economic evaluations of health interventions and policies. In global health, such evaluations typically apply a discount rate of 3% for health outcomes and costs, mirroring guidance developed for high-income countries, notably the USA. The article investigates the suitability of these guidelines for global health [i.e. with a focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)] and seeks to identify best practice. Our analysis builds on an overview of the academic literature on discounting in health evaluations, existing academic or government-related guidelines on discounting, a review on discount rates applied in economic evaluations in global health, and cross-country macroeconomic data. The social discount rate generally applied in global health of 3% annually is inconsistent with rates of economic growth experienced outside the most advanced economies. For low- and lower-middle-income countries, a discount rate of at least 5% is more appropriate, and one around 4% for upper-middle-income countries. Alternative approaches-e.g. motivated by the returns to alternative investments or by the cost of financing-could usefully be applied, dependent on policy context. The current practise could lead to systematic bias towards over-valuing the future costs and health benefits of interventions. For health economic evaluations in global health, guidelines on discounting need to be adapted to take account of the different economic contexts of LMICs.

Giving arguments to operationalize health capabilities in economic evaluations of health interventions

This article argues that health capabilities should be used to generate a measure of health-related quality of life so that health policy avoids expanding to encompass problems related to total well-being. To this end, health should be defined holistically, considering it as internal capabilities related to the physical, mental, and social domains. While different sets of health capabilities can be considered depending on their purpose, a synthesized set composed of health, health agency, material conditions and community dimensions incorporating this holistic definition of health together with external conditions is proposed. Valuation of this set for its use in large-scale projects should be done using worked or corrected preferences, elicited through public discussion and hybrid methods. Finally, a weighted sum ranking, social health-related capability functional together with a sufficientarian perspective, is proposed as a feasible method by which to aggregate individual health capabilities while taking into account concerns about efficiency and equity.

OP174 Development Of A Formal Priority-Setting For The Philippine Government

Introduction:The lack of institutional mechanisms in the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) for rationalizing spending has led to a less than optimal allocation of financial resources. The study's objective is an explicit and systematic priority setting process of selecting new interventions for PhilHealth through identification of relevant literature evidence on the themes under study, then subjecting these to stakeholder and expert consultations.Methods:The qualitative study followed a problem solving approach to policy analysis. Bardach's Eightfold Path, supplemented by a World Health Organization (WHO) guideline on policy analysis, provided the framework. Eightfold path recommends that the analysis proceed by (i) defining the problem, (ii) assembling the evidence, (iii) constructing the alternatives, (iv) selecting the criteria for identifying the best alternative, (v) projecting the outcomes, (vi) confronting the tradeoffs, (vii) making the decision, and (viii) disseminating the results.Results:A six-step priority setting process to facilitate the assessment of new interventions for PhilHealth coverage was developed. The process is governed by seven accountability-based principles and four explicit criteria to evaluate interventions. Additionally, the study provided proof-of-concept for conducting local cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses as key inputs to a national systematic priority-setting process.Conclusions:This study recommended four criteria and a seven-step process for priority setting to be adopted and an overarching set of principles that will guide the conduct of such activities. The proposed priority-setting process was approved by the PhilHealth. The same process was adopted by the Department of Health in the draft administrative order for health technology assessment. This study stimulated research projects for economic evaluations of health interventions.

Generating EQ-5D-3L Utility Scores from the Dermatology Life Quality Index: A Mapping Study in Patients with Psoriasis

Objectives†List of members: Jonathan Barker, MD, FRCP; Marilyn Benham; David Burden, MD, FRCP; Ian Evans; Chris Griffiths, MD, FRCP; Sagair Hussain, PhD; Brian Kirby, MRCP; Linda Lawson; Kathy McElhone, PhD; Ruth Murphy, MB ChB, PhD, FRCP; Anthony Ormerod, MB, MD, FRCP; Caroline Owen, MBChB, FRCP; Nick Reynolds, MD, FRCP; Catherine Smith, MD, FRCP.To develop an algorithm to predict the three-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) utility scores from the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) in psoriasis. MethodsThis mapping study used data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register—a pharmacovigilance register comprising patients with moderate to severe psoriasis on systemic therapies. Conceptual overlap between the EQ-5D-3L and DLQI was assessed using Spearman rank correlation coefficients and exploratory factor analysis. Six regression methods to predict the EQ-5D-3L index (direct mapping) and two regression methods to predict EQ-5D-3L domain responses (response mapping) were tested. Random effects models were explored to account for repeated observations from the same individual. Estimated and actual EQ-5D-3L utility scores were compared using 10-fold cross-validation (in-sample) to evaluate predictive performance. Final models were selected using root mean squared error, mean absolute error, and mean error. ResultsThe data set comprised 22,085 observations for which DLQI and EQ-5D-3L were recorded on the same day. A moderate correlation was found between the measures (r = −0.47). Exploratory factor analysis showed that two EQ-5D-3L domains (pain/discomfort and depression/anxiety) were associated with all six DLQI domains. The best-performing model used ordinary least squares with DLQI items, age, and sex as explanatory variables (with squared, cubic, and interaction terms). A tool was produced to allow users to map their data to the EQ-5D-3L, and includes algorithms that require fewer variables (e.g., total DLQI scores). ConclusionsThis study produced mapping algorithms that can generate EQ-5D-3L utility scores from DLQI data for economic evaluations of health interventions for patients with psoriasis.

Growth of Global Publishing Output of Health Economics in the Twenty-First Century: A Bibliographic Insight.

Strong growth of interdisciplinary sciences might find exceptional example in academic health economics. We decided to observe the quantitative output in this science since the beginning of the twenty-first century. Electronic search of the published literature was conducted in four different databases: one medical database-MEDLINE/PubMed, two general databases-Scopus/Elsevier and Web of Science (WoS), and one specialized health economic database-NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED). The applied combination of key words was carefully chosen to cover the most commonly used terms in titles of publications dealing with conceptual areas of health economics. All bibliographic units were taken into account. Within the time horizon from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2016, without language or limitations on bibliographic unit types, we identified an output ranging approximately from 60,345 to 88,246 records with applied search strategy in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus/Elsevier, and WoS. In NHS EED, we detected 14,761 records of economic evaluations of health interventions during the period in which database was maintained and regularly updated. With slightly more than one-third of the identified records, USA clearly dominates in this field. United Kingdom takes a strong second place with about 12% of identified records. Consistently, USA and UK universities are the most frequent among the top 15 affiliations/organizations of the authors of the identified records. Authors from Harvard University contributed to the largest number of the identified records. There is a clear evidence of both the upward stream of blossoming in health economics publications and its acceleration. Based on this bibliographic data set, it is difficult to distinguish the actual impact growth of this output provided dominantly by academia with modest contribution by pharmaceutical/medicinal device industry and diverse national government-based agencies. Further insight into the citation track record of these individual publications could provide helpful upgrade and a perspective on ongoing development.

A Checklist for the Conduct, Reporting, and Appraisal of Microcosting Studies in Health Care: Protocol Development.

BackgroundMicrocosting is a cost estimation method that requires the collection of detailed data on resources utilized, and the unit costs of those resources in order to identify actual resource use and economic costs. Microcosting findings reflect the true costs to health care systems and to society, and are able to provide transparent and consistent estimates. Many economic evaluations in health and medicine use charges, prices, or payments as a proxy for cost. However, using charges, prices, or payments rather than the true costs of resources can result in inaccurate estimates. There is currently no existing checklist or guideline for the conduct, reporting, or appraisal of microcosting studies in health care interventions.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to create a checklist and guideline for the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of microcosting studies in health care interventions.MethodsAppropriate potential domains and items will be identified through (1) a systematic review of all published microcosting studies of health and medical interventions, strategies, and programs; (2) review of published checklists and guidelines for economic evaluations of health interventions, and selection of items relevant for microcosting studies; and (3) theoretical analysis of economic concepts relevant for microcosting. Item selection, formulation, and reduction will be conducted by the research team in order to develop an initial pool of items for evaluation by an expert panel comprising individuals with expertise in microcosting and economic evaluation of health interventions. A modified Delphi process will be conducted to achieve consensus on the checklist. A pilot test will be conducted on a selection of the articles selected for the previous systematic review of published microcosting studies.ResultsThe project is currently in progress.ConclusionsStandardization of the methods used to conduct, report or appraise microcosting studies will enhance the consistency, transparency, and comparability of future microcosting studies. This will be the first checklist for microcosting studies to accomplish these goals and will be a timely and important contribution to the health economic and health policy literature. In addition to its usefulness to health economists and researchers, it will also benefit journal editors and decision-makers who require accurate cost estimates to deliver health care.

A systematic review of modelling approaches in economic evaluations of health interventions for drug and alcohol problems.

BackgroundThe overarching goal of health policies is to maximize health and societal benefits. Economic evaluations can play a vital role in assessing whether or not such benefits occur. This paper reviews the application of modelling techniques in economic evaluations of drug and alcohol interventions with regard to (i) modelling paradigms themselves; (ii) perspectives of costs and benefits and (iii) time frame.MethodsPapers that use modelling approaches for economic evaluations of drug and alcohol interventions were identified by carrying out searches of major databases.ResultsThirty eight papers met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the cohort Markov models remain the most popular approach, followed by decision trees, Individual based model and System dynamics model (SD). Most of the papers adopted a long term time frame to reflect the long term costs and benefits of health interventions. However, it was fairly common among the reviewed papers to adopt a narrow perspective that only takes into account costs and benefits borne by the health care sector.ConclusionsThis review paper informs policy makers about the availability of modelling techniques that can be used to enhance the quality of economic evaluations for drug and alcohol treatment interventions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1368-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Economic Evaluation in Global Perspective: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Recent Literature.

We present a bibliometric analysis of recently published full economic evaluations of health interventions and reflect critically on the implications of our findings for this growing field. We created a database drawing on 14 health, economic, and/or general literature databases for articles published between 1 January 2012 and 3 May 2014 and identified 2844 economic evaluations meeting our criteria. We present findings regarding the sensitivity, specificity, and added value of searches in the different databases. We examine the distribution of publications between countries, regions, and health areas studied and compare the relative volume of research with disease burden. We analyse authors' country and institutional affiliations, journals and journal type, language, and type of economic evaluation conducted. More than 1200 economic evaluations were published annually, of which 4% addressed low‐income countries, 4% lower‐middle‐income countries, 14% upper‐middle‐income countries, and 83% high‐income countries. Across country income levels, 53, 54, 86, and 100% of articles, respectively, included an author based in a country within the income level studied. Biomedical journals published 74% of economic evaluations. The volume of research across health areas correlates more closely with disease burden in high‐income than in low‐income and middle‐income countries. Our findings provide an empirical basis for further study on methods, research prioritization, and capacity development in health economic evaluation.

Evaluating Cost-effectiveness of Interventions That Affect Fertility and Childbearing: How Health Effects Are Measured Matters.

Current guidelines for economic evaluations of health interventions define relevant outcomes as those accruing to individuals receiving interventions. Little consensus exists on counting health impacts on current and future fertility and childbearing. Our objective was to characterize current practices for counting such health outcomes. We developed a framework characterizing health interventions with direct and/or indirect effects on fertility and childbearing and how such outcomes are reported. We identified interventions spanning the framework and performed a targeted literature review for economic evaluations of these interventions. For each article, we characterized how the potential health outcomes from each intervention were considered, focusing on quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with fertility and childbearing. We reviewed 108 studies, identifying 7 themes: 1) Studies were heterogeneous in reporting outcomes. 2) Studies often selected outcomes for inclusion that tend to bias toward finding the intervention to be cost-effective. 3) Studies often avoided the challenges of assigning QALYs for pregnancy and fertility by instead considering cost per intermediate outcome. 4) Even for the same intervention, studies took heterogeneous approaches to outcome evaluation. 5) Studies used multiple, competing rationales for whether and how to include fertility-related QALYs and whose QALYs to include. 6) Studies examining interventions with indirect effects on fertility typically ignored such QALYs. 7) Even recent studies had these shortcomings. Limitations include that the review was targeted rather than systematic. Economic evaluations inconsistently consider QALYs from current and future fertility and childbearing in ways that frequently appear biased toward the interventions considered. As the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine updates its guidelines, making the practice of cost-effectiveness analysis more consistent is a priority. Our study contributes to harmonizing methods in this respect.

How to Include Informal Care in Economic Evaluations

Economic evaluations of health interventions aim to support decision making in healthcare. To effectively do so, evaluations need to include all relevant costs and effects of an intervention. Informal care provided by family or friends is an important element of care for many patients, but can have a profound impact on the health and well-being of carers. Therefore, informal care should be considered in economic evaluations of health interventions. Different methods to do so exist. This paper provides an overview of state-of-the-art methods available for this purpose, illustrated with practical examples. Since the choice of measurement and valuation technique depends on the type and perspective of the economic evaluation, this paper supports researchers in choosing the appropriate techniques to include informal care in their economic evaluation of a health intervention. We discuss the different approaches to measuring and valuing informal care, covering both partial and full valuation methods, allowing inclusion as costs or effects.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance.The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5years.