IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0038012.html

Coauthorship and Institutional Collaborations on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Network Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ferrán Catalá-López
  • Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo
  • Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent
  • Manuel Ridao
  • Máxima Bolaños
  • Anna García-Altés
  • Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno
  • Salvador Peiró

Abstract

Background: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) has been promoted as an important research methodology for determining the efficiency of healthcare technology and guiding medical decision-making. Our aim was to characterize the collaborative patterns of CEA conducted over the past two decades in Spain. Methods and Findings: A systematic analysis was carried out with the information obtained through an updated comprehensive literature review and from reports of health technology assessment agencies. We identified CEAs with outcomes expressed as a time-based summary measure of population health (e.g. quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years), conducted in Spain and published between 1989 and 2011. Networks of coauthorship and institutional collaboration were produced using PAJEK software. One-hundred and thirty-one papers were analyzed, in which 526 authors and 230 institutions participated. The overall signatures per paper index was 5.4. Six major groups (one with 14 members, three with 7 members and two with 6 members) were identified. The most prolific authors were generally affiliated with the private-for-profit sector (e.g. consulting firms and the pharmaceutical industry). The private-for-profit sector mantains profuse collaborative networks including public hospitals and academia. Collaboration within the public sector (e.g. healthcare administration and primary care) was weak and fragmented. Conclusions: This empirical analysis reflects critical practices among collaborative networks that contributed substantially to the production of CEA, raises challenges for redesigning future policies and provides a framework for similar analyses in other regions.

Suggested Citation

  • Ferrán Catalá-López & Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo & Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent & Manuel Ridao & Máxima Bolaños & Anna García-Altés & Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno & Salvador Peiró, 2012. "Coauthorship and Institutional Collaborations on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: A Systematic Network Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-9, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0038012
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0038012
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0038012&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0038012?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:wbk:wbpubs:7242 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Lisa Bero & Fieke Oostvogel & Peter Bacchetti & Kirby Lee, 2007. "Factors Associated with Findings of Published Trials of Drug–Drug Comparisons: Why Some Statins Appear More Efficacious than Others," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(6), pages 1-10, June.
    3. Reinhardt, Uwe E., 1997. "Making economic evaluations respectable," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 555-562, August.
    4. Lenard I Lesser & Cara B Ebbeling & Merrill Goozner & David Wypij & David S Ludwig, 2007. "Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6, January.
    5. Fernando Antoñanzas & Juan Oliva & Mariola Pinillos & Carmelo Juàrez, 2007. "Economic aspects of the new Spanish laws on pharmaceutical preparations," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 8(3), pages 297-300, September.
    6. Peter C Gøtzsche & Jerome P Kassirer & Karen L Woolley & Elizabeth Wager & Adam Jacobs & Art Gertel & Cindy Hamilton, 2009. "What Should Be Done To Tackle Ghostwriting in the Medical Literature?," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-4, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jiming Hu & Yin Zhang, 2017. "Discovering the interdisciplinary nature of Big Data research through social network analysis and visualization," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 91-109, July.
    2. Zhao, Yi & Liu, Lifan & Zhang, Chengzhi, 2022. "Is coronavirus-related research becoming more interdisciplinary? A perspective of co-occurrence analysis and diversity measure of scientific articles," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. Ferrán Catalá-López & Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno & Manuel Ridao & Salvador Peiró, 2013. "When Are Statins Cost-Effective in Cardiovascular Prevention? A Systematic Review of Sponsorship Bias and Conclusions in Economic Evaluations of Statins," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-1, July.

    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. Daniel M Cook & Elizabeth A Boyd & Claudia Grossmann & Lisa A Bero, 2007. "Reporting Science and Conflicts of Interest in the Lay Press," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(12), pages 1-5, December.
    2. Antoine Popelut & Fabien Valet & Olivier Fromentin & Aurélie Thomas & Philippe Bouchard, 2010. "Relationship between Sponsorship and Failure Rate of Dental Implants: A Systematic Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-9, April.
    3. Barrios, John & Lancieri, Filippo Maria & Levy, Joshua & Singh, Shashank & Valletti, Tommaso M. & Zingales, Luigi, 2024. "The conflict-of-interest discount in the marketplace of ideas," Working Papers 348, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    4. repec:plo:pone00:0028437 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Ivan Moreno-Torres, 2011. "Generic drugs in Spain: price competition vs. moral hazard," Working Papers XREAP2011-04, Xarxa de Referència en Economia Aplicada (XREAP), revised May 2011.
    6. Timotijevic, Lada & Khan, Shumaisa S. & Raats, Monique & Braun, Susanne, 2019. "Research priority setting in food and health domain: European stakeholder beliefs about legitimacy criteria and processes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 116-124.
    7. Steve Morgan & Morris Barer & Robert Evans, 2000. "Health economists meet the fourth tempter: drug dependency and scientific discourse," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(8), pages 659-667, December.
    8. Béné, Christophe, 2022. "Why the Great Food Transformation may not happen – A deep-dive into our food systems’ political economy, controversies and politics of evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    9. Lessard, Chantale, 2007. "Complexity and reflexivity: Two important issues for economic evaluation in health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1754-1765, April.
    10. Maynard, Alan & McDaid, David, 2003. "Evaluating health interventions: exploiting the potential," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 215-226, February.
    11. Ivan Moreno-Torres, 2011. "What if there was a stronger pharmaceutical price competition in Spain? When regulation has a similar effect to collusion," Working Papers XREAP2011-02, Xarxa de Referència en Economia Aplicada (XREAP), revised May 2011.
    12. Scott, C. & Hawkins, B. & Knai, C., 2017. "Food and beverage product reformulation as a corporate political strategy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 37-45.
    13. Gary Sacks & Devorah Riesenberg & Melissa Mialon & Sarah Dean & Adrian J Cameron, 2020. "The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, December.
    14. Marie A. Bragg & Brian Elbel & Marion Nestle, 2020. "Food Industry Donations to Academic Programs: A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Extent of Publicly Available Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-15, March.
    15. Jorgen Lauridsen & Mickael Bech & Fernando López & Mariluz Sánchez, 2010. "A spatiotemporal analysis of public pharmaceutical expenditure," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 44(2), pages 299-314, April.
    16. repec:plo:pone00:0197425 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Adolfo Maria Tambella & Anna Rita Attili & Gilles Dupré & Andrea Cantalamessa & Stefano Martin & Vincenzo Cuteri & Sabrina Marcazzan & Massimo Del Fabbro, 2018. "Platelet-rich plasma to treat experimentally-induced skin wounds in animals: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-26, January.
    18. repec:plo:pmed00:1000156 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Weldon, Isaac & Parkhurst, Justin, 2022. "Governing evidence use in the nutrition policy process: evidence and lessons from the 2020 Canada food guide," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112430, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Gorman, Dennis M. & Conde, Eugenia, 2007. "Conflict of interest in the evaluation and dissemination of "model" school-based drug and violence prevention programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 422-429, November.
    21. Aline Sigrist & Elodie Richardet & Nicolas Senn & Joëlle Schwarz, 2025. "Discussing Human and Environmental Health Co-Benefits Related to Diet and Mobility Behaviours in the Primary Care Setting: A Qualitative Exploratory Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 22(10), pages 1-19, September.
    22. Campbell, Norah & Mialon, Melissa & Reilly, Kathryn & Browne, Sarah & Finucane, Francis M., 2020. "How are frames generated? Insights from the industry lobby against the sugar tax in Ireland," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    23. Diels, Johan & Cunha, Mario & Manaia, Célia & Sabugosa-Madeira, Bernardo & Silva, Margarida, 2011. "Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 197-203, April.

    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:plo:pone00:0038012. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.