Quality Of Health Economic Studies Instrument Research Articles

Economic Evaluations of Digital Health Interventions for the Management of Musculoskeletal Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are widespread in many countries and their huge burden on the society has necessitated innovative approaches such as digital health interventions. However, no study has evaluated the findings of cost-effectiveness of these interventions. This study aims to synthesize the cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions for people with MSDs. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, AMED, CIHAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Centre for Review and Dissemination were searched for cost-effectiveness of digital health published between inception and June 2022 following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. References of all retrieved articles were checked for relevant studies. Quality appraisal of the included studies was performed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Results were presented using a narrative synthesis and random effects meta-analysis. A total of 10 studies from 6 countries met the inclusion criteria. Using the QHES instrument, we found that the mean score of the overall quality of the included studies was 82.5. Included studies were on nonspecific chronic low back pain (n=4), chronic pain (n=2), knee and hip osteoarthritis (n=3), and fibromyalgia (n=1). The economic perspectives adopted in the included studies were societal (n=4), societal and health care (n=3), and health care (n=3). Of the 10 included studies, 5 (50%) used quality-adjusted life-years as the outcome measures. Except 1 study, all the included studies reported that digital health interventions were cost-effective compared with the control group. In a random effects meta-analysis (n=2), the pooled disability and quality-adjusted life-years were -0.176 (95% CI -0.317 to -0.035; P=.01) and 3.855 (95% CI 2.023 to 5.687; P<.001), respectively. The meta-analysis (n=2) for the costs was in favor of the digital health intervention compared with control: US $417.52 (95% CI -522.01 to -313.03). Studies indicate that digital health interventions are cost-effective for people with MSDs. Our findings suggest that digital health intervention could help improve access to treatment for patients with MSDs and as a result improve their health outcomes. Clinicians and policy makers should consider the use of these interventions for patients with MSDs. PROSPERO CRD42021253221; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=253221.

Cost-effectiveness evidence of mental health prevention and promotion interventions: A systematic review of economic evaluations.

BackgroundThe prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being are growing fields. Whether mental health promotion and prevention interventions provide value for money in children, adolescents, adults, and older adults is unclear. The aim of the current study is to update 2 existing reviews of cost-effectiveness studies in this field in order to determine whether such interventions are cost-effective.Methods and findingsElectronic databases (including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EconLit through EBSCO and Embase) were searched for published cost-effectiveness studies of prevention of mental disorders and promotion of mental health and well-being from 2008 to 2020. The quality of studies was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies Instrument (QHES). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (# CRD42019127778). The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or return on investment (ROI) ratio across all studies.A total of 65 studies met the inclusion criteria of a full economic evaluation, of which, 23 targeted children and adolescents, 35 targeted adults, while the remaining targeted older adults. A large number of studies focused on prevention of depression and/or anxiety disorders, followed by promotion of mental health and well-being and other mental disorders. Although there was high heterogeneity in terms of the design among included economic evaluations, most studies consistently found that interventions for mental health prevention and promotion were cost-effective or cost saving. The review found that targeted prevention was likely to be cost-effective compared to universal prevention. Screening plus psychological interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT]) at school were the most cost-effective interventions for prevention of mental disorders in children and adolescents, while parenting interventions and workplace interventions had good evidence in mental health promotion. There is inconclusive evidence for preventive interventions for mental disorders or mental health promotion in older adults. While studies were of general high quality, there was limited evidence available from low- and middle-income countries.The review was limited to studies where mental health was the primary outcome and may have missed general health promoting strategies that could also prevent mental disorder or promote mental health. Some ROI studies might not be included given that these studies are commonly published in grey literature rather than in the academic literature.ConclusionsOur review found a significant growth of economic evaluations in prevention of mental disorders or promotion of mental health and well-being over the last 10 years. Although several interventions for mental health prevention and promotion provide good value for money, the varied quality as well as methodologies used in economic evaluations limit the generalisability of conclusions about cost-effectiveness. However, the finding that the majority of studies especially in children, adolescents, and adults demonstrated good value for money is promising. Research on cost-effectiveness in low-middle income settings is required.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42019127778.

Cost-effectiveness analyses in shoulder arthroplasty: a critical review using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review to identify cost-analysis studies pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty, provide a comprehensive review of published studies, and critically evaluate the quality of the available literature using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify cost analyses examining shoulder arthroplasty. The inclusion criteria included studies pertaining to either shoulder hemiarthroplasty (HA), total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), or reverse TSA. Articles were excluded based on the following: nonoperative studies, nonclinical studies, studies not based in the United States, and studies in which no cost analysis was performed. The quality of studies was assessed using the QHES instrument. One-sided Fisher exact testing was performed to identify predictors of both low-quality (ie, QHES score < 25th percentile) and high-quality (ie, QHES score > 75th percentile) cost analyses based on items within the QHES checklist. Of the 196 studies screened, 9 were included. Seven studies conducted cost analyses comparing reverse TSA vs. arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, HA, or total hip arthroplasty, and 2 studies examined TSA vs. HA for primary glenohumeral arthritis. The average QHES score amongall studies was 86.22 ± 13.39 points. Failure to include an annual cost discounting rate was associated with a low-quality QHES score (P = .03). In addition, including a discussion of the magnitude and direction of potential biases was associated with a high-quality score (P = .03). Shoulder arthroplasty is a cost-effective procedure when used to treat a multitude of shoulder pathologies. The overall quality of cost analysis in shoulder arthroplasty is relatively good, with an average QHES score of 86.22 points. Studies failing to include an annual cost discounting rate are more likely to score below the 25th percentile, whereas those including a discussion of the magnitude and direction of potential biases are more likely to achieve a score in excess of the 75th percentile.

A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluation on Targeted Therapies for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Quality Evaluation.

BackgroundEvolving practices in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapy inevitably affect health care budgets, especially through the introduction of targeted therapies. This results in a rise of health economic evaluations (HEEs) in this domain. This article reviews the quality of the economic evidence of targeted therapies used in metastatic NSCLC.MethodsA literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and CRD (University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination) databases to identify topical original articles published between 1/1/2000 and 3/31/2019. A quality of reporting assessment using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement) checklist was converted into a quantitative score and compared with the results of a QHES (Quality of Health Economic Studies) evaluation. Components of QHES were also used to analyze the validity of primary outcomes, consideration of heterogeneity and rationality of main assumptions of models in modeling studies.ResultsIn total, 25 HEEs were obtained and analyzed. From the CHEERS assessment, it was found that method description integrity (including setting, perspective, time horizon and discount rate), justification of data sources and a heterogeneity description were often absent or incomplete. Only five examined studies met the accepted standard of good quality. Modeled articles were examined with the QHES instrument, and a lack of illustrated structure, population variability, formula of the transitioning probability and justification for the choice of the model were the most frequently observed problems in the selected studies. After quantification, the CHEERS scores and QHES scores did not differ significantly.ConclusionCurrent NSCLC models generally lack consideration for demographic heterogeneity and transparency of data description, and it would be difficult to transfer or generalize from the scientific literature to real-world evidence-based decision-making. Frameworks of future models should be informed and justified based on the validity of model results and the improvement of modeling accuracy.

Level of Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices: A Systematic Review.

The objective of the present work was to assess the level of evidence in economic evaluations of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure devices, and to test the complementarity of three different tools for assessing the quality of economic evaluations. We conducted a systematic review of articles in English or French listed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis registry and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database. We included only economic evaluations concerning left atrial appendage closure devices. Data were extracted from articles by two authors working independently and using three analysis grids to measure the quality of economic evaluations [the British Medical Journal(BMJ) checklist, the hierarchy scale developed by Cooper et al. (J Health Serv Res Policy 10:245-50, 2005) and the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument]. Seven economic evaluations met our inclusion criteria. All were published between 2013 and 2016. All were cost-utility analyses, and fully complied with the BMJ checklist. According to the hierarchy scale developed by Cooper et al., the quality of data used was heterogeneous. Finally, the mean score for the seven economic studies was 90/100 with the QHES instrument. Despite the recent development of left atrial appendage closure devices, most economic evaluations conducted here were well-designed studies. Furthermore, different tools used to assess the quality of these studies were complementary, but none gave a global vision of the quality of economic studies.

Quality of health economic evaluations for the ACC/AHA stable ischemic heart disease practice guideline: A systematic review

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) recently published a rigorous framework to guide integration of economic data into clinical guidelines. We assessed the quality of economic evaluations in a major ACC/AHA clinical guidance report. We systematically identified cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of RCTs cited in the ACC/AHA 2012 Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease. We extracted: (1) study identifiers; (2) parent RCT information; (3) economic analysis characteristics; and (4) study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument (QHES). Quality scores were categorized as high (≥75 points) or low (<75 points). Of 1,266 citations in the guideline, 219 were RCTs associated with 77 CEAs. Mean quality score was 81 (out of 100) and improved over time, though 29.9% of studies were low-quality. Cost-per-QALY was the most commonly reported primary outcome (39.0%). Low-quality studies were less likely to report study perspective, use appropriate time horizons, or address statistical and clinical uncertainty. Funding was overwhelmingly private (83%). A detailed methodological assessment of high-quality studies revealed domains of additional methodological issues not identified by the QHES. Economic evaluations of RCTs in the 2012 ACC/AHA ischemic heart disease guideline largely had high QHES scores but methodological issues existed among "high-quality" studies. Because the ACC/AHA has generally been more systematic in its integration of scientific evidence compared to other professional societies, it is likely that most societies will need to proceed more cautiously in their integration of economic evidence.

Economic Evaluations of Thrombophilia Screening Prior to Prescribing Combined Oral Contraceptives: A Systematic and Critical Review.

Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) increase the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), particularly among women with inherited clotting disorders. The World Health Organization classifies combined hormonal contraception as an "unacceptable health risk" for women with thrombogenic mutations but advises against universal thrombophilia screening before prescribing COCs given the low prevalence of thrombophilia and high screening costs. Through the lens of lifetime costs and benefits, this paper systematically and critically reviews all published economic evaluations of thrombophilia screening prior to prescribing COCs. We searched relevant databases for economic evaluations of thrombophilia screening before prescribing COCs. After extracting the key study characteristics and economic variables, we evaluated each article using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) instruments. Seven economic evaluations of thrombophilia screening before prescribing COCs met our inclusion criteria. Only the two economic evaluations focusing exclusively on selective screening exceeded the 75-point threshold for high-quality economic studies based on the QHES instrument, whereas only one of these exceeded the 85% CHEERS threshold. Only three of the seven economic evaluations performed sensitivity analysis on key parameters. Most studies underestimated the benefits of thrombophilia screening by comparing one-time costs of genetic screening against benefits per person-year, thus implicitly assuming a 1-year duration of COC use, neglecting the long-term implications of VTE and/or neglecting the lifetime benefits of awareness of inherited thrombophilia. Our review highlights the lack of methodologically rigorous economic evaluations of universal thrombophilia screening before prescribing COCs.

Health economic evaluation reporting guideline and application status

Using the guidelines of health economic evaluation reporting is conducive to regulating the contents of this reporting, improving the quality of studies into health economics evaluation. This article summarized the history of the guidelines and specified the instrument used to study " Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES)" and the checklist about Consolidated Health Economics Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)-the two specific evaluation contents in this guideline, the article also introduced its present application status of the guideline and its pros and cons. The checklist of CHEERS emphasized the evaluation of this report, while QHES instrument focused on quantitative evaluation on the quality of economic studies. Despite different emphasis, the two guides are actually mutually complemented.

The Quality of Economic Evaluations in the Otolaryngology Literature

Objectives: (1) Identify factors that may predict the quality of economic evaluations in the otolaryngology literature. (2) Identify current weaknesses in published economic evaluations for the purposes of improving the quality of future studies. Methods: This is a retrospective quality review of published economic evaluations using the validated Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. A systematic review of the Medline, Embase, PubMed, and NHS economic evaluation databases was performed using otolaryngology key terms combined with the terms cost and effectiveness. A manual search of 33 otolaryngology journals was also performed to prevent missed studies. Included studies were graded using the QHES instrument, a 16-item checklist providing a total quality score of 100. Results: Fifty studies were identified, and the mean QHES rating was 54.7 (SD: 31.0). Higher quality economic evaluations were associated with a higher journal impact factor (correlation coefficient r 0.62, P &lt; .01), having an author with a PhD in health economics ( r 0.56, P &lt; .01), and having authors who have published prior economic evaluations ( r 0.46, P &lt; .01). The most commonly omitted methodology was lack of defining the cost perspective and lack of a robust sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: The quality of economic evaluations is important to properly inform efficient allocation of scarce health care resources. Our study investigated the overall quality of economic evaluations in the otolaryngology literature and demonstrated that there is potential to improve the quality of published studies. Future studies should follow published methodology guidelines and consider collaborating with authors who have experience with economic evaluation.

Assessment of the Quality of Cost Analysis Literature in Physical Therapy

Policy makers, payers, and other stakeholders increasingly call for greater evidence of the cost-effectiveness of health care interventions. The purposes of this study were to identify and rate the quality of cost analysis literature in physical therapy and to report summary information on the findings from the reviewed studies. This study was a targeted literature review and rating of relevant studies published in the last decade using a quality evaluation tool for economic studies. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to obtain quality scores. Ninety-five in-scope studies were identified and rated using the QHES instrument. The average quality score was 82.2 (SD=15.8), and 81 of the studies received a score of 70 or higher, placing them in the "good" to "excellent" quality range. Investigators in nearly two thirds of the studies found the physical therapy intervention under investigation to be cost-effective. The small number of studies meeting the inclusion criteria was a limitation of the study. The quality of the literature regarding the cost-effectiveness of physical therapy is very good, although the magnitude of this body of literature is small. Greater awareness of the strengths and limitations of cost analyses in physical therapy should provide guidance for conducting high-quality cost-effectiveness studies as demand increases for demonstrations of the value of physical therapy.

Comparison of three instruments assessing the quality of economic evaluations: A practical exercise on economic evaluations of the surgical treatment of obesity

The increasing use of full economic evaluations has led to the development of various instruments to assess their quality. The purpose of this study was to compare the frequently used British Medical Journal (BMJ) check-list and two new instruments: the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list and the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. The analysis was based on a practical exercise on economic evaluations of the surgical treatment of obesity. The quality of nine selected studies was assessed independently by two health economists. To compare instruments, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated for each assessor. Moreover, the test-retest reliability for each instrument was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (3,1). Finally, the inter-rater agreement for each instrument was estimated at two levels: comparison of the total score of each article by the ICC(2,1) and comparison of results per item by kappa values. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between instruments was usually high (rho > 0.70). Furthermore, test-retest reliability was good for every instruments, that is, 0.98 (95 percent CI, 0.86-0.99) for the BMJ check-list, 0.97 (95 percent CI, 0.73-0.98) for the CHEC list, and 0.95 (95 percent CI, 0.75-0.99) for the QHES instrument. However, inter-rater agreement was poor (kappa < 0.40 for most items and ICC(2,1) < or = 0.5). The study shows that the results of the quality assessment of economic evaluations are not so much influenced by the instrument used but more by the assessor. Therefore, quality assessments should be performed by at least two independent experts and final scoring based on consensus.