IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v10y2020i1d10.1186_s13561-020-0260-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The use of micro-costing in economic analyses of surgical interventions: a systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Shelley Potter

    (Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School
    Bristol Breast Care Centre, North Bristol NHS Trust)

  • Charlotte Davies

    (Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School)

  • Gareth Davies

    (Bristol Centre for Surgical Research, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School)

  • Caoimhe Rice

    (Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University Of Bristol)

  • William Hollingworth

    (Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University Of Bristol)

Abstract

Background Compared with conventional top down costing, micro-costing may provide a more accurate method of resource-use assessment in economic analyses of surgical interventions, but little is known about its current use. The aim of this study was to systematically-review the use of micro-costing in surgery. Methods Comprehensive searches identified complete papers, published in English reporting micro-costing of surgical interventions up to and including 22nd June 2018. Studies were critically appraised using a modified version of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) Checklist. Study demographics and details of resources identified; methods for measuring and valuing identified resources and any cost-drivers identified in each study were summarised. Results A total of 85 papers were identified. Included studies were mainly observational comparative studies (n = 42, 49.4%) with few conducted in the context of a randomised trial (n = 5, 5.9%). The majority of studies were single-centre (n = 66, 77.6%) and almost half (n = 40, 47.1%) collected data retrospectively. Only half (n = 46, 54.1%) self-identified as being ‘micro-costing’ studies. Rationale for the use of micro-costing was most commonly to compare procedures/techniques/processes but over a third were conducted specifically to accurately assess costs and/or identify cost-drivers. The most commonly included resources were personnel costs (n = 76, 89.4%); materials/disposables (n = 76, 89.4%) and operating-room costs (n = 62,72.9%). No single resource was included in all studies. Most studies (n = 72, 84.7%) identified key cost-drivers for their interventions. Conclusions There is lack of consistency regarding the current use of micro-costing in surgery. Standardising terminology and focusing on identifying and accurately costing key cost-drivers may improve the quality and value of micro-costing in future studies. Trial registration PROSPERO registration CRD42018099604.

Suggested Citation

  • Shelley Potter & Charlotte Davies & Gareth Davies & Caoimhe Rice & William Hollingworth, 2020. "The use of micro-costing in economic analyses of surgical interventions: a systematic review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-020-0260-8
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-020-0260-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-020-0260-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-020-0260-8?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. Zsolt Mogyorosy & Peter Smith, 2005. "The main methodological issues in costing health care services: A literature review," Working Papers 007cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    2. Nicholas Graves & Damian Walker & Rosalind Raine & Andrew Hutchings & Jennifer A. Roberts, 2002. "Cost data for individual patients included in clinical studies: no amount of statistical analysis can compensate for inadequate costing methods," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(8), pages 735-739, December.
    3. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    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. Alfredo Palacios & Carlos Rojas-Roque & Lucas González & Ariel Bardach & Agustín Ciapponi & Claudia Peckaitis & Andres Pichon-Riviere & Federico Augustovski, 2021. "Direct Medical Costs, Productivity Loss Costs and Out-Of-Pocket Expenditures in Women with Breast Cancer in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(5), pages 485-502, May.
    2. M. Carreras & M. García-Goñi & P. Ibern & J. Coderch & L. Vall-Llosera & J. Inoriza, 2011. "Estimates of patient costs related with population morbidity: can indirect costs affect the results?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 12(4), pages 289-295, August.
    3. Josephine C. Jacobs & Paul G. Barnett, 2017. "Emergent Challenges in Determining Costs for Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 129-139, February.
    4. Adam Martin & Alex Jones & Miranda Mugford & Ian Shemilt & Ruth Hancock & Raphael Wittenberg, 2012. "Methods Used To Identify And Measure Resource Use In Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review Of Questionnaires For Older People," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(8), pages 1017-1022, August.
    5. Manuel Gomes & Richard Grieve & Richard Nixon & W. J. Edmunds, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses That Use Data from Cluster Randomized Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 209-220, January.
    6. Christabel C Enweronu-Laryea & Hilary D Andoh & Audrey Frimpong-Barfi & Francis M Asenso-Boadi, 2018. "Parental costs for in-patient neonatal services for perinatal asphyxia and low birth weight in Ghana," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, October.
    7. Eduard Beck & Carlos Avila & Sofia Gerbase & Guy Harling & Paul Lay, 2012. "Counting the Cost of Not Costing HIV Health Facilities Accurately," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(10), pages 887-902, October.
    8. Leticia García-Mochón & Zuzana Špacírová & Jaime Espín, 2022. "Costing methodologies in European economic evaluation guidelines: commonalities and divergences," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 979-991, August.
    9. Paal Joranger & Arild Nesbakken & Halfdan Sorbye & Geir Hoff & Arne Oshaug & Eline Aas, 2020. "Survival and costs of colorectal cancer treatment and effects of changing treatment strategies: a model approach," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(3), pages 321-334, April.
    10. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    11. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    12. Laurence M. Djatche & Stefan Varga & Robert D. Lieberthal, 2018. "Cost-Effectiveness of Aspirin Adherence for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 371-380, December.
    13. Ties Hoomans & Johan Severens & Nicole Roer & Gepke Delwel, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Economic Evaluations of New Pharmaceuticals in the Netherlands," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 219-227, March.
    14. Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.
    16. Barbara Graaff & Lei Si & Amanda L. Neil & Kwang Chien Yee & Kristy Sanderson & Lyle C. Gurrin & Andrew J. Palmer, 2017. "Population Screening for Hereditary Haemochromatosis in Australia: Construction and Validation of a State-Transition Cost-Effectiveness Model," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 37-51, March.
    17. Christopher Fitzpatrick & Katherine Floyd, 2012. "A Systematic Review of the Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Treatment for Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 63-80, January.
    18. Hareth Al-Janabi & Terry N. Flynn & Joanna Coast, 2011. "Estimation of a Preference-Based Carer Experience Scale," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 458-468, May.
    19. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    20. Ching-Yun Wei & Ruben G. W. Quek & Guillermo Villa & Shravanthi R. Gandra & Carol A. Forbes & Steve Ryder & Nigel Armstrong & Sohan Deshpande & Steven Duffy & Jos Kleijnen & Peter Lindgren, 2017. "A Systematic Review of Cardiovascular Outcomes-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lipid-Lowering Therapies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 297-318, March.

    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:hecrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-020-0260-8. 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/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.