HERC: Conducting High-Quality Health Economics Research

2002 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keely Jordan ◽  
Todd P. Lewis ◽  
Bayard Roberts

Abstract Background There is a growing concern that the quality of health systems in humanitarian crises and the care they provide has received little attention. To help better understand current practice and research on health system quality, this paper aimed to examine the evidence on the quality of health systems in humanitarian settings. Methods This systematic review was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The context of interest was populations affected by humanitarian crisis in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). We included studies where the intervention of interest, health services for populations affected by crisis, was provided by the formal health system. Our outcome of interest was the quality of the health system. We included primary research studies, from a combination of information sources, published in English between January 2000 and January 2019 using quantitative and qualitative methods. We used the High Quality Health Systems Framework to analyze the included studies by quality domain and sub-domain. Results We identified 2285 articles through our search, of which 163 were eligible for full-text review, and 55 articles were eligible for inclusion in our systematic review. Poor diagnosis, inadequate patient referrals, and inappropriate treatment of illness were commonly cited barriers to quality care. There was a strong focus placed on the foundations of a health system with emphasis on the workforce and tools, but a limited focus on the health impacts of health systems. The review also suggests some barriers to high quality health systems that are specific to humanitarian settings such as language barriers for refugees in their host country, discontinued care for migrant populations with chronic conditions, and fears around provider safety. Conclusion The review highlights a large gap in the measurement of quality both at the point of care and at the health system level. There is a need for further work particularly on health system measurement strategies, accountability mechanisms, and patient-centered approaches in humanitarian settings.


2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredrik Hansen ◽  
Anders Anell ◽  
Ulf-G Gerdtham ◽  
Carl Hampus Lyttkens

Health care systems around the globe are facing great challenges. The demand for health care is increasing due to the continuous development of new medical technologies, changing demographics, increasing income levels, and greater expectations from patients. The possibilities and willingness to expand health care resources, however, are limited. Consequently, health care organizations are increasingly required to take economic restrictions into account, and there is an urgent need for improved efficiency. It is reasonable to ask whether the health economics field of today is prepared and equipped to help us meet these challenges. Our aim with this article is twofold: to introduce the fields of behavioral and experimental economics and to then identify and characterize health economics areas where these two fields have a promising potential. We also discuss the advantages of a pluralistic view in health economics research, and we anticipate a dynamic future for health economics.Published: Online May 2015. In print December 2015.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew R. Cooperberg ◽  
John D. Birkmeyer ◽  
Mark S. Litwin

Author(s):  
Blánaid Daly ◽  
Paul Batchelor ◽  
Elizabeth Treasure ◽  
Richard Watt

In the last 40 years, the needs of and demands for health care both in the UK and worldwide have increased dramatically. These increases are related to the population ageing, the development of new technologies and knowledge, rising patient expectations, and associated increases in professional expectations about the possibilities and potential of health care (Muir Gray 1997 ). In this period, the key policy concerns of the international health care community have been about containing costs and enabling equitable access to high quality health care, while also ensuring greater accountability, patient satisfaction, and improved public health (Lohr et al. 1998). Health care resources are finite and must be shared equitably on the basis of need, capacity to benefit, and effectiveness. The use of high quality research evidence and guidelines to inform individual patient care and population health care have become central to this process. In the mid-1970s, various writers began to question the effectiveness of medicine and the increasingly wider influence exerted by the medical profession on society. For example, McKeown (1976) mapped mortality rates for the main killer airborne diseases (tuberculosis, whooping cough, scarlet fever, diptheria, and smallpox) against contemporary advances in medicine from the mid-19th century to the early 1970s. He found that the declines in the incidence and prevalence of communicable diseases had occurred before their microbial cause had been identified and before an effective clinical intervention had been developed. McKeown concluded that the declines in mortality rates were not attributable to immunization and therapy and suggested the declines could more reasonably be attributed to better nutrition and improved housing conditions which had occurred over the period. Allied to McKeown’s historical analysis was the work of Archie Cochrane who evaluated contemporary clinical practice in the 1970s. In his seminal work Effectiveness and Efficiency , Cochrane (1972) showed that many medical treatments provided in the NHS were ineffective, inefficient, and founded on medical opinion rather than on a rigorous assessment of efficacy and effectiveness. Box 7.1 defines the terms efficacy, effective, and efficiency.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document