IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v17y2019i4d10.1007_s40258-019-00477-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying an Implementation Framework to the Use of Evidence from Economic Evaluations in Making Healthcare Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Gregory Merlo

    (Queensland University of Technology, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation)

  • Katie Page

    (Queensland University of Technology, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation)

  • Pauline Zardo

    (Queensland University of Technology)

  • Nicholas Graves

    (Queensland University of Technology, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation)

Abstract

Background and Objective There is a need for the application of theory in understanding the use of evidence from economic evaluations in healthcare decision making. The purpose of this study is to review the published literature on the use of evidence from economic evaluations for healthcare decision making and to map the findings to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Methods A systematic search strategy was used to identify studies investigating the factors that determine the use of evidence from economic evaluation in healthcare decision making. Barriers and facilitators identified in the included studies were mapped across the five CFIR domains, with the “intervention” referring to the use of economic evaluations in decision making. Gaps, inconsistencies and emergent relations were identified through the mapping process. Results Fifty-three studies met eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The CFIR constructs associated with the Intervention Characteristics and those associated with the knowledge and beliefs of users of economic evaluations were widely cited in the identified barriers and facilitators. Other constructs from the CFIR had not been reported in the literature, such as ‘organisational networks’ and ‘individual stage of change’. Most of the stages in the implementation process as described by the CFIR were reflected in the identified barriers and facilitators. Discussion By categorising barriers and facilitators into domains, the CFIR provides a systematic approach to assess how these factors interact. Literature gaps in the literature regarding the use of economic evaluation in healthcare decision making were identified, specifically issues regarding organisational networks and the role of feedback. Conclusions Through mapping findings from studies of the use of evidence from economic evaluations in healthcare decision making, we present an implementation framework based on the CFIR for understanding the use of economic evaluations into practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Pauline Zardo & Nicholas Graves, 2019. "Applying an Implementation Framework to the Use of Evidence from Economic Evaluations in Making Healthcare Decisions," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 533-543, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00477-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-019-00477-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-019-00477-4
    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/s40258-019-00477-4?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. Anders Anell, 2004. "Priority setting for pharmaceuticals," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(1), pages 28-35, February.
    2. Martin, Douglas K. & Hollenberg, Daniel & MacRae, Sue & Madden, Shannon & Singer, Peter, 2003. "Priority setting in a hospital drug formulary: a qualitative case study and evaluation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 295-303, December.
    3. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Julie Ratcliffe & Kate Halton & Nicholas Graves, 2015. "Bridging the Gap: Exploring the Barriers to Using Economic Evidence in Healthcare Decision Making and Strategies for Improving Uptake," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 303-309, June.
    4. Cheung, Kei Long & Evers, Silvia M.A.A. & Hiligsmann, Mickaël & Vokó, Zoltán & Pokhrel, Subhash & Jones, Teresa & Muñoz, Celia & Wolfenstetter, Silke B. & Józwiak-Hagymásy, Judit & de Vries, Hein, 2016. "Understanding the stakeholders’ intention to use economic decision-support tools: A cross-sectional study with the tobacco return on investment tool," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 46-54.
    5. Drummond, Michael & Cooke, Jonathan & Walley, Tom, 1997. "Economic evaluation under managed competition: Evidence from the U.K," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 583-595, August.
    6. Ross, Jayne, 1995. "The use of economic evaluation in health care: Australian decision makers' perceptions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 103-110, February.
    7. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2009. "Use of economic evaluation in local health care decision-making in England: A qualitative investigation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 261-270, March.
    8. Al, Maiwenn J. & Feenstra, Talitha & Brouwer, Werner B. F., 2004. "Decision makers' views on health care objectives and budget constraints: results from a pilot study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 33-48, October.
    9. Walley, Tom & Barton, Stuart & Cooke, Jonathan & Drummond, Michael, 1997. "Economic evaluations of drug therapy: attitudes of primary care prescribing advisers in Great Britain," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 61-72, July.
    10. Hans-Martin Späth & Marie Charavel & Magali Morelle & Marie-Odile Carrère, 2003. "A qualitative approach to the use of economic data in the selection of medecines for hospital formularies: a French survey," Post-Print halshs-00335137, HAL.
    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. Ahumada-Canale, Antonio & Jeet, Varinder & Bilgrami, Anam & Seil, Elizabeth & Gu, Yuanyuan & Cutler, Henry, 2023. "Barriers and facilitators to implementing priority setting and resource allocation tools in hospital decisions: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 322(C).

    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. Gregory Merlo & Katie Page & Julie Ratcliffe & Kate Halton & Nicholas Graves, 2015. "Bridging the Gap: Exploring the Barriers to Using Economic Evidence in Healthcare Decision Making and Strategies for Improving Uptake," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 303-309, June.
    2. Eddama, Oya & Coast, Joanna, 2008. "A systematic review of the use of economic evaluation in local decision-making," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(2-3), pages 129-141, May.
    3. Williams, Iestyn & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: A conceptual framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 135-143, January.
    4. Elias Asfaw Zegeye & Josue Mbonigaba & Sylvia Blanche Kaye & Thomas Wilkinson, 2017. "Economic Evaluation in Ethiopian Healthcare Sector Decision Making: Perception, Practice and Barriers," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 33-43, February.
    5. Williams, Iestyn P. & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and formulary decision making in England: Findings from research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(10), pages 2116-2129, November.
    6. Stirling Bryan & Iestyn Williams & Shirley McIver, 2007. "Seeing the NICE side of cost‐effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(2), pages 179-193, February.
    7. Michael E. Otim & Augustine D. Asante & Margaret Kelaher & Ian P. Anderson & Stephen Jan, 2016. "Acceptability of programme budgeting and marginal analysis as a tool for routine priority setting in Indigenous health," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 277-295, July.
    8. Hoffmann, Christiane AU -, 2000. "The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making.: A European survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 179-192, July.
    9. Legood, Rosa & Wolstenholme, Jane & Gray, Alastair, 2009. "From cost-effectiveness information to decision-making on liquid-based cytology: Mind the gap," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 193-200, February.
    10. James Mason & Martin Eccles & Nick Freemantle & Mike Drummond, 1998. "NICEly does it: economic analysis within evidence-based clinical practice guidelines," Working Papers 164chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    11. Karin Cerri & Martin Knapp & Jose-Luis Fernandez, 2014. "Public funding of pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands: investigating the effect of evidence, process and context on CVZ decision-making," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(7), pages 681-695, September.
    12. Amani Thomas Mori & Eliangiringa Amos Kaale & Frida Ngalesoni & Ole Frithjof Norheim & Bjarne Robberstad, 2014. "The Role of Evidence in the Decision-Making Process of Selecting Essential Medicines in Developing Countries: The Case of Tanzania," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, January.
    13. Addo, Rebecca & Hall, Jane & Haas, Marion & Goodall, Stephen, 2020. "The knowledge and attitude of Ghanaian decision-makers and researchers towards health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    14. Mason, James & Eccles, Martin & Freemantle, Nick & Drummond, Michael, 1999. "A framework for incorporating cost-effectiveness in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 37-52, April.
    15. Jommi, Claudio & Costa, Enrico & Michelon, Alessandra & Pisacane, Maria & Scroccaro, Giovanna, 2013. "Multi-tier drugs assessment in a decentralised health care system. The Italian case-study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 241-247.
    16. Brousselle, Astrid & Lessard, Chantale, 2011. "Economic evaluation to inform health care decision-making: Promise, pitfalls and a proposal for an alternative path," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(6), pages 832-839, March.
    17. Sofaer, Neema & Kapiriri, Lydia & Atuyambe, Lynn M. & Otolok-Tanga, Erasmus & Norheim, Ole Frithjof, 2009. "Is the selection of patients for anti-retroviral treatment in Uganda fair?: A qualitative study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 33-42, June.
    18. Salome A. Bukachi & Washington Onyango-Ouma & Jared Maaka Siso & Isaac K. Nyamongo & Joseph K. Mutai & Anna Karin Hurtig & Øystein Evjen Olsen & Jens Byskov, 2014. "Healthcare priority setting in Kenya: a gap analysis applying the accountability for reasonableness framework," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 342-361, October.
    19. Katharina Fischer & Reiner Leidl, 2014. "Analysing coverage decision-making: opening Pandora’s box?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 15(9), pages 899-906, December.
    20. E. Stolk & M. Poley, 2005. "Criteria for determining a basic health services package," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(1), pages 2-7, March.

    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:aphecp:v:17:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00477-4. 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.