IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v38y2020i7d10.1007_s40273-020-00907-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Franklin

    () (University of Sheffield)

  • James Lomas

    (University of York)

  • Gerry Richardson

    (University of York)

Abstract

This article provides an educational review covering the consideration of conducting ‘value for money’ analyses as part of non-randomised study designs including service evaluations. These evaluations represent a vehicle for producing evidence such as value for money of a care intervention or service delivery model. Decision makers including charities and local and national governing bodies often rely on evidence from non-randomised data and service evaluations to inform their resource allocation decision-making. However, as randomised data obtained from randomised controlled trials are considered the ‘gold standard’ for assessing causation, the use of this alternative vehicle for producing an evidence base requires careful consideration. We refer to value for money analyses, but reflect on methods associated with economic evaluations as a form of analysis used to inform resource allocation decision-making alongside a finite budget. Not all forms of value for money analysis are considered a full economic evaluation with implications for the information provided to decision makers. The type of value for money analysis to be conducted requires considerations such as the outcome(s) of interest, study design, statistical methods to control for confounding and bias, and how to quantify and describe uncertainty and opportunity costs to decision makers in any resulting value for money estimates. Service evaluations as vehicles for producing evidence present different challenges to analysts than what is commonly associated with research, randomised controlled trials and health technology appraisals, requiring specific study design and analytic considerations. This educational review describes and discusses these considerations, as overlooking them could affect the information provided to decision makers who may make an ‘ill-informed’ decision based on ‘poor’ or ‘inaccurate’ information with long-term implications. We make direct comparisons between randomised controlled trials relative to non-randomised data as vehicles for assessing causation; given ‘gold standard’ randomised controlled trials have limitations. Although we use UK-based decision makers as examples, we reflect on the needs of decision makers internationally for evidence-based decision-making specific to resource allocation. We make recommendations based on the experiences of the authors in the UK, reflecting on the wide variety of methods available, used as documented in the empirical literature. These methods may not have been fully considered relevant to non-randomised study designs and/or service evaluations, but could improve and aid the analysis conducted to inform the relevant value for money decision problem.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:38:y:2020:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00907-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00907-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-020-00907-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    ---><---

    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. Clara Mukuria & Donna Rowen & Sue Harnan & Andrew Rawdin & Ruth Wong & Roberta Ara & John Brazier, 2019. "An Updated Systematic Review of Studies Mapping (or Cross-Walking) Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life to Generic Preference-Based Measures to Generate Utility Values," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 295-313, June.
    2. Loomes, Graham & McKenzie, Lynda, 1989. "The use of QALYs in health care decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 299-308, January.
    3. Meacock, Rachel, 2019. "Methods for the economic evaluation of changes to the organisation and delivery of health services: principal challenges and recommendations," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 119-134, January.
    4. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Sophie Whyte & Paul Tappenden, 2015. "Distributional Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of Health Care Programmes – A Methodological Case Study of the UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(6), pages 742-754, June.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Manca, A & Austin, P. C, 2008. "Using propensity score methods to analyse individual patient-level cost-effectiveness data from observational studies," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 08/20, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    9. Alexis Llewellyn & Rita Faria & Beth Woods & Mark Simmonds & James Lomas & Nerys Woolacott & Susan Griffin, 2016. "Daclatasvir for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: A Critique of the Clinical and Economic Evidence," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(10), pages 981-992, October.
    10. 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.
    11. William Crown, 2014. "Propensity-Score Matching in Economic Analyses: Comparison with Regression Models, Instrumental Variables, Residual Inclusion, Differences-in-Differences, and Decomposition Methods," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 7-18, February.
    12. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    13. Weatherly, Helen & Drummond, Michael & Claxton, Karl & Cookson, Richard & Ferguson, Brian & Godfrey, Christine & Rice, Nigel & Sculpher, Mark & Sowden, Amanda, 2009. "Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: Key challenges and recommendations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(2-3), pages 85-92, December.
    14. 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)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 29th June 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-06-29 11:00:06

    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. Deidda, Manuela & Geue, Claudia & Kreif, Noemi & Dundas, Ruth & McIntosh, Emma, 2019. "A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 353-361.
    2. 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).
    3. Tom L. Drake & Yoel Lubell, 2017. "Malaria and Economic Evaluation Methods: Challenges and Opportunities," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 291-297, June.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Richard Cookson & Andrew Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin, 2016. "Fairer decisions, better health for all: Health equity and cost-effectiveness analysis," Working Papers 135cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    7. Stephen Rocks & Daniela Berntson & Alejandro Gil-Salmerón & Mudathira Kadu & Nieves Ehrenberg & Viktoria Stein & Apostolos Tsiachristas, 0. "Cost and effects of integrated care: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 0, pages 1-11.
    8. Hossein Haji Ali Afzali & Laura Bojke & Jonathan Karnon, 2018. "Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(11), pages 1309-1319, November.
    9. Salah Ghabri & Françoise F. Hamers & Jean Michel Josselin, 2016. "Exploring Uncertainty in Economic Evaluations of Drugs and Medical Devices: Lessons from the First Review of Manufacturers’ Submissions to the French National Authority for Health," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 617-624, June.
    10. Amr Makady & Ard Veelen & Páll Jonsson & Owen Moseley & Anne D’Andon & Anthonius Boer & Hans Hillege & Olaf Klungel & Wim Goettsch, 2018. "Using Real-World Data in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Practice: A Comparative Study of Five HTA Agencies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 359-368, March.
    11. Alec Morton & Amanda I. Adler & David Bell & Andrew Briggs & Werner Brouwer & Karl Claxton & Neil Craig & Alastair Fischer & Peter McGregor & Pieter van Baal, 2016. "Unrelated Future Costs and Unrelated Future Benefits: Reflections on NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(8), pages 933-938, August.
    12. 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.
    13. Osvaldo Ulises Garay & Marie Libérée Nishimwe & Marwân-al-Qays Bousmah & Asmaa Janah & Pierre-Marie Girard & Geneviève Chêne & Laetitia Moinot & Luis Sagaon-Teyssier & Jean-Luc Meynard & Bruno Spire &, 2019. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy Versus Standard Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-1 Infected Patients with Viral Suppression in France (ANRS 140 DREAM)," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 505-515, December.
    14. An Tran-Duy & Annelies Boonen & Wietske Kievit & Piet Riel & Mart Laar & Johan Severens, 2014. "Modelling Outcomes of Complex Treatment Strategies Following a Clinical Guideline for Treatment Decisions in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 1015-1028, October.
    15. Xiao Zang & Emanuel Krebs & Linwei Wang & Brandon D. L. Marshall & Reuben Granich & Bruce R. Schackman & Julio S. G. Montaner & Bohdan Nosyk, 2019. "Structural Design and Data Requirements for Simulation Modelling in HIV/AIDS: A Narrative Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(10), pages 1219-1239, October.
    16. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    17. Claire Rothery & Karl Claxton & Stephen Palmer & David Epstein & Rosanna Tarricone & Mark Sculpher, 2017. "Characterising Uncertainty in the Assessment of Medical Devices and Determining Future Research Needs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S1), pages 109-123, February.
    18. Grundy, Quinn, 2016. "“Whether something cool is good enough”: The role of evidence, sales representatives and nurses' expertise in hospital purchasing decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 82-91.
    19. Padraig Dixon & George Davey Smith & Stephanie von Hinke & Neil M. Davies & William Hollingworth, 2016. "Estimating Marginal Healthcare Costs Using Genetic Variants as Instrumental Variables: Mendelian Randomization in Economic Evaluation," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(11), pages 1075-1086, November.
    20. 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.

    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:38:y:2020:i:7:d:10.1007_s40273-020-00907-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.