1
|
Shafiee F, Sarbaz M, Marouzi P, Banaye Yazdipour A, Kimiafar K. Providing a framework for evaluation disease registry and health outcomes Software: Updating the CIPROS checklist. J Biomed Inform 2024; 149:104574. [PMID: 38101688 DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2023.104574] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2023] [Revised: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 12/08/2023] [Indexed: 12/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Properly designed and implemented registry systems play an important role in improving health outcomes and reducing care costs, and can provide a true representation of clinical practice, disease outcomes, safety, and efficacy. Therefore, the aim of this study was to redesign and develop a checklist with items for a patient registry software system (CIPROS) Checklist. METHOD The study is descriptive-cross-sectional. The extraction of the data elements of the checklist was first done through a comprehensive review of the texts in PubMed, Science Direct and Scopus databases and receiving articles related to the evaluation of registry systems. Based on the extracted data, a five-point Likert scale questionnaire was created and 30 experts in this field were asked for their opinions using the two-step Delphi method. RESULTS A total of 100 information items were determined as a registry software evaluation checklist. This checklist included 12 groups of software architecture factors, development, interfaces and interactivity, semantics and standardization, internationality, data management, data quality and usability, data analysis, security, privacy, organizational, education and public factors. CONCLUSION By using the results of this research, it is possible to identify the defects and possible strengths of the registry software and put it at the disposal of the relevant officials to make a decision in this field. In this way, among the designers and developers of these softwares, the best and most appropriate ones are selected with the needs of the registry programs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fatemeh Shafiee
- Department of Health Information Technology, School of Paramedical and Rehabilitation Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
| | - Masoume Sarbaz
- Department of Health Information Technology, School of Paramedical and Rehabilitation Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
| | - Parviz Marouzi
- Department of Health Information Technology, School of Paramedical and Rehabilitation Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
| | - Alireza Banaye Yazdipour
- Department of Health Information Technology, School of Paramedical and Rehabilitation Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran; Department of Health Information Management and Medical Informatics, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Students' Scientific Research Center (SSRC), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
| | - Khalil Kimiafar
- Department of Health Information Technology, School of Paramedical and Rehabilitation Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Trapero-Bertran M, Pokhrel S, Hanney S. Research can be integrated into public health policy-making: global lessons for and from Spanish economic evaluations. Health Res Policy Syst 2022; 20:67. [PMID: 35717247 PMCID: PMC9206096 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-022-00875-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2021] [Accepted: 05/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
WHO promotes the use of research in policy-making to drive improvements in health, including in achieving Sustainable Development Goals such as tobacco control. The European Union’s new €95 billion Horizon Europe research framework programme parallels these aims, and also includes commitments to fund economic evaluations. However, researchers often express frustration at the perceived lack of attention to scientific evidence during policy-making. For example, some researchers claim that evidence regarding the return on investment from optimal implementation of evidence-based policies is frequently overlooked. An increasingly large body of literature acknowledges inevitable barriers to research use, but also analyses facilitators encouraging such use. This opinion piece describes how some research is integrated into policy-making. It highlights two recent reviews. One examines impact assessments of 36 multi-project research programmes and identifies three characteristics of projects more likely to influence policy-making. These include a focus on healthcare system needs, engagement of stakeholders, and research conducted for organizations supported by structures to receive and use evidence. The second review suggests that such characteristics are likely to occur as part of a comprehensive national health research system strategy, especially one integrated into the healthcare system. We also describe two policy-informing economic evaluations conducted in Spain. These examined the most cost-effective package of evidence-based tobacco control interventions and the cost-effectiveness of different strategies to increase screening coverage for cervical cancer. Both projects focused on issues of healthcare concern and involved considerable stakeholder engagement. The Spanish examples reinforce some lessons from the global literature and, therefore, could help demonstrate to authorities in Spain the value of developing comprehensive health research systems, possibly following the interfaces and receptor model. The aim of this would be to integrate needs assessment and stakeholder engagement with structures spanning the research and health systems. In such structures, economic evaluation evidence could be collated, analysed by experts in relation to healthcare needs, and fed into both policy-making as appropriate, and future research calls. The increasingly large local and global evidence base on research utilization could inform detailed implementation of this approach once accepted as politically desirable. Given the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing the cost-effectiveness of healthcare systems and return on investment of public health interventions becomes even more important.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marta Trapero-Bertran
- Basic Sciences Department, Patients Institute, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Subhash Pokhrel
- Health Economics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, Brunel University London, London, UK.
| | - Stephen Hanney
- Health Economics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, Brunel University London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
White A, Srinivasan M, Wingate LM, Peasah S, Fleming M. Development of a pharmacoeconomic registry: an example using hormonal contraceptives. Health Econ Rev 2021; 11:10. [PMID: 33745016 PMCID: PMC7981865 DOI: 10.1186/s13561-021-00309-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/17/2020] [Accepted: 03/12/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Disease-specific registries, documenting costs and probabilities from pharmacoeconomic studies along with health state utility values from quality-of-life studies could serve as a resource to guide researchers in evaluating the published literature and in the conduct of future economic evaluations for their own research. Registries cataloging economic evaluations currently exist, however they are restricted by the type of economic evaluations they include. There is a need for intervention-specific registries, that document all types of complete and partial economic evaluations and auxiliary information such as quality of life studies. The objective of this study is to describe the development of a pharmacoeconomic registry and provide best practices using an example of hormonal contraceptives. METHODS An expert panel consisting of researchers with expertise in pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research was convened and the clinical focus of the registry was finalized after extensive discussion. A list of key continuous, categorical and descriptive variables was developed to capture all relevant data with each variable defined in a data dictionary. A web-based data collection tool was designed to capture and store the resulting metadata. A keyword based search strategy was developed to retrieve the published sources of literature. Finally, articles were screened for relevancy and data was extracted to populate the registry. Expert opinions were taken from the panel at each stage to arrive at consensus and ensure validity of the registry. RESULTS The registry focused on economic evaluation literature of hormonal contraceptives used for contraception. The registry consisted of 65 articles comprising of 22 cost-effectiveness analyses, 9 cost-utility analyses, 7 cost-benefit analyses, 1 cost-minimization, 14 cost analyses, 10 cost of illness studies and 2 quality of life studies. The best practices followed in the development of the registry were summarized as recommendations. The completed registry, data dictionary and associated data files can be accessed in the supplementary information files. CONCLUSION This registry is a comprehensive database of economic evaluations, including costs, clinical probabilities and health-state utility estimates. The collated data captured from published information in this registry can be used to identify trends in the literature, conduct systematic reviews and meta-analysis and develop novel pharmacoeconomic models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Annesha White
- University of North Texas System College of Pharmacy, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107 USA
- Department of Pharmacotherapy, UNT System College of Pharmacy, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd, IREB 211, Fort Worth, TX 76107 USA
| | - Meenakshi Srinivasan
- University of North Texas System College of Pharmacy, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107 USA
| | | | - Samuel Peasah
- Mercer University College of Pharmacy, Atlanta, GA 30341 USA
| | - Marc Fleming
- University of North Texas System College of Pharmacy, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX 76107 USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Dodd M, Ivers R, Zwi AB, Rahman A, Jagnoor J. Investigating the process of evidence-informed health policymaking in Bangladesh: a systematic review. Health Policy Plan 2020; 34:469-478. [PMID: 31237941 PMCID: PMC6736329 DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czz044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/08/2019] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Over the last four decades, Bangladesh has made considerable improvements in population health, this is in part due to the use of evidence to inform policymaking. This systematic review aims to better understand critical factors that have facilitated the diffusion of scientific evidence into multiple phases of health policymaking in Bangladesh. To do this an existing policy framework designed by Shiffman and Smith in 2007, was used to extract and synthesize data from selected policy analyses. This framework was used to ensure the content, context and actors involved with evidence-informed policymaking were considered in each case where research had helped shape a health policy. The 'PRISMA Checklist' was employed to design pre-specified eligibility criteria for the selection of information sources, search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and process of data extraction and synthesis. Through our systematic search conducted from February to May 2017, we initially identified 1859 articles; after removal of duplicates, followed by the screening of titles, abstracts and full-texts, 24 articles were included in the analysis. Health policy issues included the following topics: maternal and child health, tobacco control, reproductive health, infectious disease control and the impact and sustainability of knowledge translation platforms. Findings suggested that research evidence that could be used to meet key targets associated with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were more likely to be considered as a political (and therefore policy) priority. Furthermore, avenues of engagement between research organizations and the government as well as collective action from civil-society organizations were important for the diffusion of evidence into policies. Through this article, it is apparent that the interface between evidence and policy formulation occurs when evidence is, disseminated by a cohesive policy-network with strong leadership and framed to deliver solutions for problems on both the domestic and global development agenda.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Madeleine Dodd
- Injury Division, The George Institute for Global Health, UNSW Sydney, 1 King Street, Newtown, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Rebecca Ivers
- Injury Division, The George Institute for Global Health, UNSW Sydney, 1 King Street, Newtown, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Public Health & Community Medicine, UNSW; The George Institute for Global Health Australia, UNSW, Australia
| | - Anthony B Zwi
- Health, Rights and Development (HEARD@UNSW), Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Aminur Rahman
- Centre for Injury Prevention and Research (CIPRB), Dhaka, Bangladesh
| | - Jagnoor Jagnoor
- Injury Division, The George Institute for Global Health, UNSW Sydney, 1 King Street, Newtown, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Neumann PJ, Anderson JE, Panzer AD, Pope EF, D'Cruz BN, Kim DD, Cohen JT. Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures. Gates Open Res 2018; 2:5. [PMID: 29431169 DOI: 10.12688/gatesopenres.12786.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/12/2018] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: We examined the similarities and differences between studies using two common metrics used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, which contains English-language cost-per-QALY gained studies, and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, which contains cost-per-DALY averted studies. We examined study characteristics, including intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease, and also compared the number of published CEAs to disease burden for major diseases and conditions across geographic regions. Results: We identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 and observed rapid growth for both literatures. Cost-per-QALY studies most often examined pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries. Cost-per-DALY studies predominantly focused on infectious disease interventions and interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. We found that while diseases imposing a larger burden tend to receive more attention in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature, the number of publications for some diseases and conditions deviates from this pattern, suggesting "under-studied" conditions (e.g., neonatal disorders) and "over-studied" conditions (e.g., HIV and TB). Conclusions: The CEA literature has grown rapidly, with applications to diverse interventions and diseases. The publication of fewer studies than expected for some diseases given their imposed burden suggests funding opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter J Neumann
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jordan E Anderson
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ari D Panzer
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Elle F Pope
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Brittany N D'Cruz
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - David D Kim
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Joshua T Cohen
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Neumann PJ, Anderson JE, Panzer AD, Pope EF, D'Cruz BN, Kim DD, Cohen JT. Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures. Gates Open Res 2018; 2:5. [PMID: 29431169 PMCID: PMC5801595 DOI: 10.12688/gatesopenres.12786.2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/28/2018] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: We examined the similarities and differences between studies using two common metrics used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, which contains English-language cost-per-QALY gained studies, and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, which contains cost-per-DALY averted studies. We examined study characteristics, including intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease, and also compared the number of published CEAs to disease burden for major diseases and conditions across geographic regions. Results: We identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 and observed rapid growth for both literatures. Cost-per-QALY studies most often examined pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries. Cost-per-DALY studies predominantly focused on infectious disease interventions and interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. We found that while diseases imposing a larger burden tend to receive more attention in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature, the number of publications for some diseases and conditions deviates from this pattern, suggesting "under-studied" conditions (e.g., neonatal disorders) and "over-studied" conditions (e.g., HIV and TB). Conclusions: The CEA literature has grown rapidly, with applications to diverse interventions and diseases. The publication of fewer studies than expected for some diseases given their imposed burden suggests funding opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter J Neumann
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jordan E Anderson
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Ari D Panzer
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Elle F Pope
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Brittany N D'Cruz
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - David D Kim
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Joshua T Cohen
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - John B Wong
- From Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|