An economic evaluation methodology for smallholder maize research and extension: Zimbabwe

1995 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.A. MacMillan ◽  
G. Mudimu ◽  
J.F. MacRobert ◽  
L. Rugube ◽  
E. Guveya ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Laura Bojke ◽  
Laetitia Schmitt ◽  
James Lomas ◽  
Gerry Richardson ◽  
Helen Weatherly

Evaluation of the costs and outcomes associated with environmental policies and interventions is often required to inform public policy and allocate scarce resources. Methods to conduct assessments of cost-effectiveness have been developed in the context of pharmaceuticals, but have more recently been applied in public health, diagnostics, and other more complex interventions. The suitability of existing economic evaluation methodology has been explored in many contexts, however, this is yet to be undertaken for interventions and policies pertaining to the natural environment, such as urban green spaces and strategies to reduce indoor and outdoor air pollution. To make significant inroads into the evaluation of interventions and policies relating to the natural environment requires an understanding of the challenges faced in this context. Many of these challenges may be practical (data-related), however, a number are also methodological, and thus have implications for the appropriate framework for economic evaluation. This paper considers some of the challenges faced when conducting cost-effectiveness analyses in this context and explores what solutions have been proposed thus far. The intention is to help pave the way for consideration of which existing framework is most appropriate for the evaluation of natural environment (NE) interventions, or if a distinct framework is required. Environmental policies and interventions relating to the built environment, for example, housing, are not explicitly included here.


Author(s):  
Venkatakrishnan Balasubramanian ◽  
Nawshad Haque ◽  
Suresh Bhargava ◽  
Srinivasan Madapusi ◽  
Rajarathinam Parthasarathy

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 56-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen M. Torres ◽  
Mamdouh Gadalla ◽  
Josep M. Mateo-Sanz ◽  
Laureano Jiménez

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui-Yao Huang ◽  
Cheng-Cheng Liu ◽  
Yue Yu ◽  
Le Wang ◽  
Da-Wei Wu ◽  
...  

Background and Purpose: The availability of oncology biosimilars is deemed as a fundamental strategy to achieve sustainable health care. However, there is scarce systematic evidence on economic effectiveness of cancer biosimilars. We aimed to synthesize evidence from pharmacoeconomic evaluation of oncology biosimilars globally, provide essential data and methodological reference for involved stakeholders.Materials and Methods: This systematic review was conducted in PubMed, embase, the Cochrane library, CRD, ISPOR and NICE utill December 31, 2019. Information on basic characteristics, evaluation methodology and results were extracted. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Checklist.Results: For 17 studies identified (13 from Europe and four from United States), the overall quality was generally acceptable. A total of seven biological molecules involved with filgrastim, EPOETIN α, and trastuzumab leading the three. The mostly common evaluation perspective was payer, but the time horizon varied greatly. There were ten studies which adopted cost minimization analysis to evaluate efficiency while seven studies adopted budget impact analysis to address affordability, with cost ratio and cost saving being its corresponding primary endpoint. Although the comparability of included studies was limited and specific results were largely affected by uptake and price discount rates of the oncology biosimilar, the comprehensive results consistently favored its promotion.Conclusion: Globally, the economic evaluation of cancer biosimilars is in its initial phase. However, limited evidence from developed countries consistently supported both cost-effectiveness of efficiency and affordability of oncology biosimilars, while they were largely affected by uptake and price discount rate.


2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 229-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trine S Bergmo

It has been reported that economic evaluations of telemedicine are less adherent to methodological standards than economic evaluations in other fields. Systematic reviews also show that most studies evaluate benefits in terms of the cost savings, with no assessment of the health benefits for patients. In a recent review of economic evaluations, I found 33 articles that measured both costs and non-resource consequences of using telemedicine in direct patient care. This represents a considerable increase compared to previous reviews. The articles analysed were highly diverse in both study context and applied methods. Most studies used multiple outcome measures, such as diagnostic accuracy, blood glucose levels, wound size or quality-adjusted life-years gained. The effectiveness measures appeared more consistent and well reported than the costings. Objectives, study design and choice of comparators were mostly well reported. However, most studies lacked information on perspective and costing method, few used general statistics and sensitivity analysis to assess validity, and even fewer used marginal analysis. These shortcomings in economic evaluation methodology are relatively common and have been found in other fields of research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document