IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v41y2023i2d10.1007_s40273-022-01221-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How is the Societal Perspective Defined in Health Technology Assessment? Guidelines from Around the Globe

Author

Listed:
  • Tuba Saygın Avşar

    (University College London)

  • Xiaozhe Yang

    (University College London)

  • Paula Lorgelly

    (University of Auckland)

Abstract

Some researchers have argued that the aim of an economic evaluation should be to offer guidance on resource allocation based on public interest from a societal perspective. The application of a societal perspective in health technology assessment (HTA), while common in many published studies, is not mandated in most countries, and there is limited discussion on what the societal perspective should encompass. This study aimed to systematically compare and contrast the HTA guidelines in different countries. HTA methods guidelines were identified through international HTA networks, such as the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and Guide to Economic Analysis Research (GEAR). The respective HTA agencies were grouped into two categories: well-established and newly developed, based on the establishment date. Data extracted from the guidelines summarised the methodological details in the reference cases, including specifics on the societal perspective. The database search yielded 46 guidelines, and 65% explicitly considered the societal perspective. The maturity of these agencies is reflected in their attitudes towards the societal perspective; the societal perspective is defined in 73% of the guidelines of well-established agencies and only 56% of those of newly developed agencies. The guidelines from multipayer healthcare systems are more likely to consider the societal perspective. Although most guidelines from the well-established agencies recommend the inclusion of a societal perspective, the types of costs and consequences that should be included and the recommended approaches to valuing them are variable. The direct costs to family and carers were included in 73% of the societal perspective definitions, while non-health outcomes were considered in only 40%. Most HTA guidelines lack clear guidance on what to include under specific perspectives. Considering the recent advancements in economic evaluation methods, it is timely to rethink the role of the societal perspective in HTA guidelines and adopt a more comprehensive perspective to include all costs and consequences of healthcare services.

Suggested Citation

  • Tuba Saygın Avşar & Xiaozhe Yang & Paula Lorgelly, 2023. "How is the Societal Perspective Defined in Health Technology Assessment? Guidelines from Around the Globe," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 123-138, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:41:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01221-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01221-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01221-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-022-01221-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher & Tony Culyer, 2007. "Mark versus Luke? Appropriate Methods for the Evaluation of Public Health Interventions," Working Papers 031cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    2. Simon Walker & Susan Griffin & Miqdad Asaria & Aki Tsuchiya & Mark Sculpher, 2019. "Striving for a Societal Perspective: A Framework for Economic Evaluations When Costs and Effects Fall on Multiple Sectors and Decision Makers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 577-590, October.
    3. Anthony J. Culyer & Yvonne Bombard, 2012. "An Equity Framework for Health Technology Assessments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(3), pages 428-441, May.
    4. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Claxton, Karl & Stoddart, Greg L. & Torrance, George W., 2015. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780199665884.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francesco Ramponi & Simon Walker & Susan Griffin & Steve Parrott & Colin Drummond & Paolo Deluca & Simon Coulton & Mona Kanaan & Gerry Richardson, 2021. "Cost‐effectiveness analysis of public health interventions with impacts on health and criminal justice: An applied cross‐sectoral analysis of an alcohol misuse intervention," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 972-988, May.
    2. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. James Lomas & Jessica Ochalek & Rita Faria, 2022. "Avoiding Opportunity Cost Neglect in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Health Technology Assessment," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 13-18, January.
    4. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Gerry Richardson, 2020. "Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(7), pages 665-681, July.
    5. Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Nataša Perić & Judit Simon, 2022. "Harmonization issues in unit costing of service use for multi-country, multi-sectoral health economic evaluations: a scoping review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Edward Cox & Simon Walker & Charlotte L. Edwardson & Stuart J. H. Biddle & Alexandra M. Clarke-Cornwell & Stacy A. Clemes & Melanie J. Davies & David W. Dunstan & Helen Eborall & Malcolm H. Granat & L, 2022. "The Cost-Effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life Intervention for Reducing Sitting Time," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-14, November.
    7. Sebastian Hinde & Helen Weatherly & Gabriella Walker & Lorna K. Fraser, 2021. "What Does Economic Evaluation Mean in the Context of Children at the End of Their Life?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-11, November.
    8. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Mickael Hiligsmann & Silvia M. A. A. Evers & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Leonarda G. M. Bremmers, 2021. "The Relative Importance of Education and Criminal Justice Costs and Benefits in Economic Evaluations: A Best–Worst Scaling Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 99-108, January.
    9. Peter J. Neumann & David D. Kim & Thomas A. Trikalinos & Mark J. Sculpher & Joshua A. Salomon & Lisa A. Prosser & Douglas K. Owens & David O. Meltzer & Karen M. Kuntz & Murray Krahn & David Feeny & An, 2018. "Future Directions for Cost-effectiveness Analyses in Health and Medicine," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(7), pages 767-777, October.
    10. Baudouin Standaert & Christophe Sauboin & Quentin J. Leclerc & Mark P. Connolly, 2021. "Comparing the Analysis and Results of a Modified Social Accounting Matrix Framework with Conventional Methods of Reporting Indirect Non-Medical Costs," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 257-269, February.
    11. Fattore, Giovanni & Federici, Carlo & Drummond, Michael & Mazzocchi, Mario & Detzel, Patrick & Hutton, Zsuzsa V & Shankar, Bhavani, 2021. "Economic evaluation of nutrition interventions: Does one size fit all?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(9), pages 1238-1246.
    12. Daniel Howdon & Sebastian Hinde & James Lomas & Matthew Franklin, 2022. "Economic Evaluation Evidence for Resource-Allocation Decision Making: Bridging the Gap for Local Decision Makers Using English Case Studies," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 783-792, November.
    13. Marco Hafner & Erez Yerushalmi & Fredrik L. Andersson & Teodor Burtea, 2023. "Partially different? The importance of general equilibrium in health economic evaluations: An application to nocturia," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), pages 654-674, March.
    14. Mark Sculpher & Stephen Palmer, 2020. "After 20 Years of Using Economic Evaluation, Should NICE be Considered a Methods Innovator?," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 247-257, March.
    15. Irina Pokhilenko & Luca M. M. Janssen & Aggie T. G. Paulus & Ruben M. W. A. Drost & William Hollingworth & Joanna C. Thorn & Sian Noble & Judit Simon & Claudia Fischer & Susanne Mayer & Luis Salvador-, 2023. "Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 155-166, March.
    16. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    17. Christopher M Doran & Irina Kinchin, 2020. "Economic and epidemiological impact of youth suicide in countries with the highest human development index," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, May.
    18. Boniface Oyugi & Olena Nizalova & Sally Kendall & Stephen Peckham, 2024. "Does a free maternity policy in Kenya work? Impact and cost–benefit consideration based on demographic health survey data," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(1), pages 77-89, February.
    19. Lili Wang & Lei Si & Fiona Cocker & Andrew J. Palmer & Kristy Sanderson, 2018. "A Systematic Review of Cost-of-Illness Studies of Multimorbidity," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 15-29, February.
    20. Etienne Nédellec & Judith Pineau & Patrice Prognon & Nicolas Martelli, 2018. "Level of Evidence in Economic Evaluations of Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 793-802, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:41:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01221-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.