IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v36y2018i1d10.1007_s40273-017-0569-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capturing Budget Impact Considerations Within Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Rotavirus Vaccine in Low- and Middle-Income Countries and a Proposed Assessment Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Natalie Carvalho

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Mark Jit

    (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
    Public Health England)

  • Sarah Cox

    (Initiative for Vaccine Research, World Health Organization, Program in Applied Vaccine Experiences Scholar)

  • Joanne Yoong

    (University of Southern California
    National University of Singapore and National University Hospital System)

  • Raymond C. W. Hutubessy

    (Initiative for Vaccine Research, World Health Organization)

Abstract

Background In low- and middle-income countries, budget impact is an important criterion for funding new interventions, particularly for large public health investments such as new vaccines. However, budget impact analyses remain less frequently conducted and less well researched than cost-effectiveness analyses. Objective The objective of this study was to fill the gap in research on budget impact analyses by assessing (1) the quality of stand-alone budget impact analyses, and (2) the feasibility of extending cost-effectiveness analyses to capture budget impact. Methods We developed a budget impact analysis checklist and scoring system for budget impact analyses, which we then adapted for cost-effectiveness analyses, based on current International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force recommendations. We applied both budget impact analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis checklists and scoring systems to examine the extent to which existing economic evaluations provide sufficient evidence about budget impact to enable decision making. We used rotavirus vaccination as an illustrative case in which low- and middle-income countries uptake has been limited despite demonstrated cost effectiveness. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries published between January 2000 and February 2017. We critically appraised the quality of budget impact analyses, and assessed the extension of cost-effectiveness analyses to provide useful budget impact information. Results Six budget impact analyses and 60 cost-effectiveness analyses were identified. Budget impact analyses adhered to most International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research recommendations, with key exceptions being provision of undiscounted financial streams for each budget period and model validation. Most cost-effectiveness analyses could not be extended to provide useful budget impact information; cost-effectiveness analyses also rarely presented undiscounted annual costs, or estimated financial streams during the first years of programme scale-up. Conclusions Cost-effectiveness analyses vastly outnumber budget impact analyses of rotavirus vaccination, despite both being critical for policy decision making. Straightforward changes to the presentation of cost-effectiveness analyses results could facilitate their adaptation into budget impact analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalie Carvalho & Mark Jit & Sarah Cox & Joanne Yoong & Raymond C. W. Hutubessy, 2018. "Capturing Budget Impact Considerations Within Economic Evaluations: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Rotavirus Vaccine in Low- and Middle-Income Countries and a Proposed Assessment Frame," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 79-90, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0569-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-017-0569-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-017-0569-2
    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/s40273-017-0569-2?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. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 361-367, May.
    2. Katelijne Vooren & Silvy Duranti & Alessandro Curto & Livio Garattini, 2014. "A Critical Systematic Review of Budget Impact Analyses on Drugs in the EU Countries," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 33-40, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Mark Jit & Raymond Hutubessy, 2016. "Methodological Challenges to Economic Evaluations of Vaccines: Is a Common Approach Still Possible?," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 245-252, June.
    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. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    2. Kim Edmunds & Penny Reeves & Paul Scuffham & Daniel A. Galvão & Robert U. Newton & Mark Jones & Nigel Spry & Dennis R. Taaffe & David Joseph & Suzanne K. Chambers & Haitham Tuffaha, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Supervised Exercise Training in Men with Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Radiation Therapy and Androgen-Deprivation Therapy," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 727-737, October.
    3. Andrew Briggs & Rachel Nugent, 2016. "Editorial," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(S1), pages 6-8, February.
    4. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Federico Augustovski & Esther Bekker-Grob & Andrew H. Briggs & Chris Carswell & Lisa Caulley & Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk & Dan Greenberg & Elizabeth Loder & Josephine Ma, 2022. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 601-609, June.
    5. B Ekman & H Nero & L S Lohmander & L E Dahlberg, 2020. "Costing analysis of a digital first-line treatment platform for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis in Sweden," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-12, August.
    6. Darcy M. Anderson & Ryan Cronk & Donald Fejfar & Emily Pak & Michelle Cawley & Jamie Bartram, 2021. "Safe Healthcare Facilities: A Systematic Review on the Costs of Establishing and Maintaining Environmental Health in Facilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-22, January.
    7. Klas Kellerborg & Werner Brouwer & Pieter Baal, 2020. "Costs and benefits of interventions aimed at major infectious disease threats: lessons from the literature," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(9), pages 1329-1350, December.
    8. David Brain & Ruth Tulleners & Xing Lee & Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana Pacella, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of an innovative model of care for chronic wounds patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-13, March.
    9. Seungman Cha & Sunghoon Jung & Dawit Belew Bizuneh & Tadesse Abera & Young-Ah Doh & Jieun Seong & Ian Ross, 2020. "Benefits and Costs of a Community-Led Total Sanitation Intervention in Rural Ethiopia—A Trial-Based Ex Post Economic Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-21, July.
    10. Paola Salari & Thomas Fürst & Stefanie Knopp & Jürg Utzinger & Fabrizio Tediosi, 2020. "Cost of interventions to control schistosomiasis: A systematic review of the literature," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-23, March.
    11. Susanne Mayer & Noemi Kiss & Agata Łaszewska & Judit Simon, 2017. "Costing evidence for health care decision-making in Austria: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, August.
    12. Zuzana Špacírová & David Epstein & Leticia García-Mochón & Joan Rovira & Antonio Olry de Labry Lima & Jaime Espín, 2020. "A general framework for classifying costing methods for economic evaluation of health care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 529-542, June.
    13. Chloé Gervès-Pinquié & Anne Girault & Serena Phillips & Sarah Raskin & Mandi Pratt-Chapman, 2018. "Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Jaclyn Beca & Don Husereau & Kelvin K. W. Chan & Neil Hawkins & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2018. "Oncology Modeling for Fun and Profit! Key Steps for Busy Analysts in Health Technology Assessment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 7-15, January.
    15. Alessandro G. Campolina & Luciana M. Rozman & Tassia C. Decimoni & Roseli Leandro & Hillegonda M. D. Novaes & Patrícia Coelho De Soárez, 2017. "Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 163-172, April.
    16. Mikyung Kelly Seo & John Cairns, 2018. "Do cancer biomarkers make targeted therapies cost-effective? A systematic review in metastatic colorectal cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-23, September.
    17. Fuxiao Li & Xiang Li & Chuanhai Guo & Ruiping Xu & Fenglei Li & Yaqi Pan & Mengfei Liu & Zhen Liu & Chao Shi & Hui Wang & Minmin Wang & Hongrui Tian & Fangfang Liu & Ying Liu & Jingjing Li & Hong Cai , 2019. "Estimation of Cost for Endoscopic Screening for Esophageal Cancer in a High-Risk Population in Rural China: Results from a Population-Level Randomized Controlled Trial," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 819-827, June.
    18. Edward Burn & Alexander D. Liddle & Thomas W. Hamilton & Sunil Pai & Hemant G. Pandit & David W. Murray & Rafael Pinedo-Villanueva, 2017. "Choosing Between Unicompartmental and Total Knee Replacement: What Can Economic Evaluations Tell Us? A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 241-253, December.
    19. Yates, Brian T., 2021. "Toward collaborative cost-inclusive evaluation: Adaptations and transformations for evaluators and economists," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    20. Darcy M. Anderson & Ryan Cronk & Lucy Best & Mark Radin & Hayley Schram & J. Wren Tracy & Jamie Bartram, 2020. "Budgeting for Environmental Health Services in Healthcare Facilities: A Ten-Step Model for Planning and Costing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-22, 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:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s40273-017-0569-2. 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.