IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chy/respap/150cherp.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Scoping review on social care economic evaluation methods

Author

Listed:
  • Helen Weatherly

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.)

  • Rita Faria

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.)

  • Bernard Van den Berg

    (University of Groningen, the Netherlands.)

  • Mark Sculpher

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.)

  • Peter O’Neill

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, UK.)

  • Kay Nolan

    (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, UK.)

  • Julie Glanville

    (York Health Economics Consortium, UK.)

  • Jaana Isojarvi

    (York Health Economics Consortium, UK.)

  • Erin Baragula

    (York Health Economics Consortium, UK.)

  • Mary Edwards

    (York Health Economics Consortium, UK.)

Abstract

Background- In the UK and internationally there is widespread acceptance of the value of economic evaluations to inform decisions about health care interventions. The general methods of economic evaluation of health care interventions are now well established. By contrast, approaches to social care economic evaluation are substantially less well developed. There is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about which methods to apply, and diversity in methodological practices. This makes it hard for decision makers to interpret the findings of different studies and make comparisons of value for money between different interventions evaluated using different methods. Despite previous attempts to co-ordinate methods in this area by providing guidelines (NICE, 2013, NICE, 2014), there remains considerable methodological uncertainty. NICE commissioned this scoping review to support developing a long-term strategy for how to consider social care economics in guidelines. Aims - The project aims to inform NICE on the methods available and the methods in development for use in undertaking economic evaluation of social care interventions. A further aim of the scoping review is to assess how well these methods address current methodological priorities for NICE in social care economic evaluation, and to identify gaps that the work will not address. On this basis, another aim is to provide recommendations to NICE on work required to address identified gaps in the future. Methods - A systematic review of the published literature and a survey of experts were undertaken to identify key methods used to undertake recent economic evaluations of social care interventions. Each study was assessed in terms of the key requirements for economic evaluation. Data were extracted on: the perspective of the analysis, the interventions compared, the evidence used on costs and effects, opportunity cost, uncertainty, and equity. Expert advisors commented on the findings of the review and this informed the results that were drawn from the studies. Recommendations were made to improve the conduct and reporting of studies, and areas of further research were identified. Results- Thirty social care economic evaluations were identified for review. Findings were reported on key requirements for economic evaluation comprising: the perspective of relevance to the decision maker, an evaluation comparing all relevant alternative interventions, use of all available evidence on costs and effects of relevance to the decision, analysis of whether the benefits of an intervention were greater than the forgone benefits of displaced interventions, assessment of the uncertainty associated with the decision, and exploration of the equity implications of the decision. Conclusions - Methods guidance for the economic evaluation of social care interventions needs to reflect what is feasible given the available evidence and what is appropriate for social care. A more developed evidence base is required in order to undertake economic evaluation of social care interventions. This should include undertaking primary studies where the evidence is not sufficient. Studies based on decision models and secondary evidence should be used where there is sufficient evidence available to do so. Investment in applied economic evaluations of social care interventions will support more informed recommendations and also develop research capacity in social care. Further methodological research is required to improve the way economic evaluations are undertaken in this field. This includes: ï‚· agreement on the objectives of social care and the appropriate outcome measures ï‚· development of cost-effectiveness threshold in social care given the agreed outcome measures ï‚· how to account for costs and benefits falling on different sectors ï‚· accounting for informal care ï‚· equity-informative economic evaluations of social care interventions ï‚· better scoping of economic evaluations ï‚· application of evidence synthesis, decision modelling and expert elicitation ï‚· application of value of information methods. NICE should consider these priorities in their discussions with the MRC Methodology Research Programme, to establish whether it can commission research on some or all of these areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Helen Weatherly & Rita Faria & Bernard Van den Berg & Mark Sculpher & Peter O’Neill & Kay Nolan & Julie Glanville & Jaana Isojarvi & Erin Baragula & Mary Edwards, 2017. "Scoping review on social care economic evaluation methods," Working Papers 150cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
  • Handle: RePEc:chy:respap:150cherp
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/researchpapers/CHERP150_social_care_evaluation_methods.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2017
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew J. Mirelman & Miqdad Asaria & Bryony Dawkins & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Peter Berman, 2020. "Fairer Decisions, Better Health for All: Health Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Paul Revill & Marc Suhrcke & Rodrigo Moreno-Serra & Mark Sculpher (ed.), Global Health Economics Shaping Health Policy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, chapter 4, pages 99-132, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. 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.
    3. Hareth Al‐Janabi & Job Van Exel & Werner Brouwer & Caroline Trotter & Linda Glennie & Laurie Hannigan & Joanna Coast, 2016. "Measuring Health Spillovers for Economic Evaluation: A Case Study in Meningitis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(12), pages 1529-1544, December.
    4. 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," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 367-372, June.
    5. Henderson, Catherine & Knapp, Martin & Fernández, José-Luis & Beecham, Jennifer & Hirani, Shashivadan P. & Beynon, Michelle & Cartwright, Martin & Rixon, Lorna & Doll, Helen & Bower, Peter & Steventon, 2014. "Cost-effectiveness of telecare for people with social care needs: the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57270, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Bernard Berg & Werner Brouwer & Marc Koopmanschap, 2004. "Economic valuation of informal care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(1), pages 36-45, February.
    7. Egil Kjerstad & Hanne Kristin Tuntland, 2016. "Reablement in community-dwelling older adults: a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Dixon, Josie & Winterbourne, Sophia & Lombard, Daniel & Watters, Sarah & Trachtenberg, Marija & Knapp, Martin & Joy, Sarah & Corral, Susana & Nzegwu, Femi & McNulty, Alison, 2014. "An analysis of the economic impacts of the British red cross support at home service," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58581, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    10. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    11. Catherine Milte & Ruth Walker & Mary Luszcz & Emily Lancsar & Billingsley Kaambwa & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "How Important Is Health Status in Defining Quality of Life for Older People? An Exploratory Study of the Views of Older South Australians," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 73-84, February.
    12. Renske Hoefman & Job Exel & Werner Brouwer, 2013. "How to Include Informal Care in Economic Evaluations," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(12), pages 1105-1119, December.
    13. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson, 2013. "Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis: a tutorial," Working Papers 092cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    14. Fernández José-Luis & Julien Forder, 2012. "Equity, efficiency, and financial risk of alternative arrangements for funding ong-term care systems in an ageing society," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 193-193, Spring.
    15. Catherine Henderson & Martin Knapp & José-Luis Fernández & Jennifer Beecham & Shashivadan P Hirani & Martin Cartwright & Lorna Rixon & Michelle Beynon & Anne Rogers & Peter Bower & Helen Doll & Ray Fi, 2013. "Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised contr," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 56772, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Cookson, Richard & Mirelman, Andrew J. & Griffin, Susan & Asaria, Miqdad & Dawkins, Bryony & Norheim, Ole Frithjof & Verguet, Stéphane & J. Culyer, Anthony, 2017. "Using cost-effectiveness analysis to address health equity concerns," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101230, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Coast, Joanna & Smith, Richard D. & Lorgelly, Paula, 2008. "Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: The spread of ideas in health economics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(7), pages 1190-1198, October.
    18. Joanna Coast & Richard Smith & Paula Lorgelly, 2008. "Should the capability approach be applied in Health Economics?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(6), pages 667-670, June.
    19. Wildman, John & McMeekin, Peter & Grieve, Eleanor & Briggs, Andrew, 2016. "Economic evaluation of integrated new technologies for health and social care: Suggestions for policy makers, users and evaluators," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 141-148.
    20. Karl Claxton & Simon Walker & Steven Palmer & Mark Sculpher, 2010. "Appropriate Perspectives for Health Care Decisions," Working Papers 054cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    21. Karl Claxton & Steve Martin & Marta Soares & Nigel Rice & Eldon Spackman & Sebastian Hinde & Nancy Devlin & Peter C Smith & Mark Sculpher, 2013. "Methods for the estimation of the NICE cost effectiveness threshold," Working Papers 081cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    22. Pieter van Baal & David Meltzer & Werner Brouwer, 2016. "Future Costs, Fixed Healthcare Budgets, and the Decision Rules of Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 237-248, February.
    23. Lucy Kok & Caroline Berden & Klarita Sadiraj, 2015. "Costs and benefits of home care for the elderly versus residential care: a comparison using propensity scores," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(2), pages 119-131, March.
    24. Joanna Coast & Philip Kinghorn & Paul Mitchell, 2015. "The Development of Capability Measures in Health Economics: Opportunities, Challenges and Progress," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 119-126, April.
    25. Julien Forder & Juliette Malley & Ann‐Marie Towers & Ann Netten, 2014. "Using Cost‐Effectiveness Estimates From Survey Data To Guide Commissioning: An Application To Home Care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(8), pages 979-992, August.
    26. Andrew Briggs, 2016. "A View from the Bridge: Health Economic Evaluation — A Value‐Based Framework?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(12), pages 1499-1502, December.
    27. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    28. Peter Makai & Willemijn Looman & Eddy Adang & René Melis & Elly Stolk & Isabelle Fabbricotti, 2015. "Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 437-450, May.
    29. 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.
    30. Coast, Joanna & Flynn, Terry N. & Natarajan, Lucy & Sproston, Kerry & Lewis, Jane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J., 2008. "Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 874-882, September.
    31. Hareth Al-Janabi & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer & Joanna Coast, 2016. "A Framework for Including Family Health Spillovers in Economic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 176-186, February.
    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. Wildman, John & McMeekin, Peter & Grieve, Eleanor & Briggs, Andrew, 2016. "Economic evaluation of integrated new technologies for health and social care: Suggestions for policy makers, users and evaluators," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 141-148.
    2. Mitchell, Paul Mark & Roberts, Tracy E. & Barton, Pelham M. & Coast, Joanna, 2015. "Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 71-79.
    3. Joanna Coast, 2019. "Assessing capability in economic evaluation: a life course approach?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 779-784, August.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Simon, Judit & Anand, Paul & Gray, Alastair & Rugkåsa, Jorun & Yeeles, Ksenija & Burns, Tom, 2013. "Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 187-196.
    7. Hill, Sarah R. & Vale, Luke & Hunter, David & Henderson, Emily & Oluboyede, Yemi, 2017. "Economic evaluations of alcohol prevention interventions: Is the evidence sufficient? A review of methodological challenges," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(12), pages 1249-1262.
    8. Herlitz, Anders & Horan, David, 2016. "Measuring needs for priority setting in healthcare planning and policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 96-102.
    9. Lorgelly, Paula K. & Lorimer, Karen & Fenwick, Elisabeth A.L. & Briggs, Andrew H. & Anand, Paul, 2015. "Operationalising the capability approach as an outcome measure in public health: The development of the OCAP-18," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 68-81.
    10. Hareth Al-Janabi & Job van Exel & Werner Brouwer & Joanna Coast, 2016. "A Framework for Including Family Health Spillovers in Economic Evaluation," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(2), pages 176-186, February.
    11. Coast, Joanna, 2018. "A history that goes hand in hand: Reflections on the development of health economics and the role played by Social Science & Medicine, 1967–2017," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 227-232.
    12. Hareth Al‐Janabi, 2018. "Do capability and functioning differ? A study of U.K. survey responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 465-479, March.
    13. Hajji, Assma & Trukeschitz, Birgit & Malley, Juliette & Batchelder, Laurie & Saloniki, Eirini & Linnosmaa, Ismo & Lu, Hui, 2020. "Population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for service users for Austria: Findings from a best-worst experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    14. Paul Mark Mitchell & Hareth Al-Janabi & Jeff Richardson & Angelo Iezzi & Joanna Coast, 2015. "The Relative Impacts of Disease on Health Status and Capability Wellbeing: A Multi-Country Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, December.
    15. Enrica Chiappero‐Martinetti & Paola Salardi & Francesco Scervini, 2019. "Estimating conversion rates: A new empirical strategy with an application to health care in Italy," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(6), pages 748-764, June.
    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. 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.
    18. Coast, Joanna & Smith, Richard D. & Lorgelly, Paula, 2008. "Welfarism, extra-welfarism and capability: The spread of ideas in health economics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(7), pages 1190-1198, October.
    19. Dukhanin, Vadim & Searle, Alexandra & Zwerling, Alice & Dowdy, David W. & Taylor, Holly A. & Merritt, Maria W., 2018. "Integrating social justice concerns into economic evaluation for healthcare and public health: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 27-35.
    20. Gang Chen & Julie Ratcliffe & Billingsley Kaambwa & Nikki McCaffrey & Jeff Richardson, 2018. "Empirical Comparison Between Capability and Two Health-Related Quality of Life Measures," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 175-190, November.

    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:chy:respap:150cherp. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chyoruk.html .

    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: Gill Forder (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/chyoruk.html .

    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.