Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T21:35:58.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The usefulness of the NHS Economic Evaluation Database to researchers undertaking technology assessment reviews

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2004

John Nixon ,
Steven Duffy ,
Nigel Armstrong ,
Dawn Craig ,
Julie Glanville ,
James Christie ,
Michael Drummond  and
Jos Kleijnen
John Nixon
Affiliation:
University of York
Steven Duffy
Affiliation:
University of York
Nigel Armstrong
Affiliation:
University of York
Dawn Craig
Affiliation:
University of York
Julie Glanville
Affiliation:
University of York
James Christie
Affiliation:
University of York
Michael Drummond
Affiliation:
University of York
Jos Kleijnen
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Health-care technology reviews now increasingly include outcome costs as well as clinical effects. This study reports the findings and implications of a survey to explore the usefulness of the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) within this process.

Methods: Postal survey of lead authors of Technology Assessment Reviews (TARs) commissioned by the United Kingdom's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). The questionnaire investigated the usefulness of NHS EED in terms of (a) search strategy, (b) data extraction, (c) quality assessment, and (d) determining requirements for new modeling studies. Qualitative data were requested, including opinions regarding NHS EED.

Results: NHS EED was used in 90 percent of all identified reviews (n=46). The questionnaire response rate was 63 percent. The percentage of scores 3 or above (most useful), 2 or below (least useful), or N/A were, respectively, (a) search strategy=62 percent, 23 percent, 15 percent; (b) data extraction=23 percent, 27 percent, 50 percent; (c) quality assessment=38 percent, 19 percent, 42 percent; (d) determining requirements for new modeling studies=27 percent, 23 percent, 50 percent. The results were expanded further in the qualitative data from the respondents.

Conclusions: NHS EED is a useful tool for a variety of tasks in the NICE/TAR process but not, unsurprisingly, as a replacement for understanding primary studies. There is, however, a need to reduce the impact of time lags between the publication of economic evaluations and the appearance of abstracts relating to them on NHS EED. The results will inform future developments of the NHS EED database, which should increase its usefulness to researchers.

Keywords

Economic evaluationTechnology assessmentReview
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , August 2004 , pp. 249 - 257
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bentkover JD, Corey R. 2002 Effective utilisation of pharmacoeconomics for decision makers. Dis Manage Health Outcomes. 10: 75– 80.Google Scholar
CCOHTA. 1997 Guidelines for economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: Canada. 2nd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment
Commonwealth of Australia. 1995 Guidelines for the pharmaceutical industry on preparation of submissions to the pharmaceutical benefits advisory committee: Including submissions involving economic analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Office
Drummond M, Jefferson T. 1996 Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ. 313: 275– 283.Google Scholar
Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. 2001 Health economic guidelines-similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health. 4: 225– 250.Google Scholar
Hoffman C, Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg J. 2000 The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making: A European survey. Health Policy. 52: 179– 192.Google Scholar
Hoffman C, Nixon J, Stoykova BA, et al. 2002 Do decision-makers find economic evaluations useful? results of recent focus group research in the UK. Value Health. 5: 71– 78.Google Scholar
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. 2001 Technical guidance for manufacturers and sponsors on making a submission to a technology appraisal. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence
Nixon J, Phipps K, Mugford M, et al. 2003 Using economic evidence to support decision-making: A case study of assertive community treatment within the UK National Service Framework for Mental Health. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 1: 179– 190.Google Scholar
Nixon J, Ulmann P, Glanville J, et al. 2004 The European Network of Health Economic Evaluation databases (EURONHEED) project. Eur J Health Econom, In press.
Royle P, Waugh N. 2003 Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Excellence appraisal system. Health Technol Assess. 7: iii, ix-x,1-51.Google Scholar
Sassi F, Archard L, McDaid D. 2002 Searching literature databases for health care economic evaluations: How systematic can we afford to be? Med Care. 40: 387– 394.Google Scholar
Stoykova BA, Drummond MF, Barbieri M, Kleijnen J. 2003 The lag between effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence of new drugs: Implications for decision-making in health care. Eur J Health Econom. 4: 313– 318.Google Scholar