scholarly journals Pharmacoeconomic Analysis of Treatment Regimens for Coronavirus Infection Coronavirus Disease-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (E) ◽  
pp. 1182-1189
Author(s):  
Olga Krylova ◽  
Anatoliy Krasheninnikov ◽  
Elza Mamontova ◽  
Galina Tananakina ◽  
D. Belyakova
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Of Illness ◽  
Pharmacoeconomic Analysis ◽  
Incremental Analysis ◽  
Mild Form ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Coronavirus Infection ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Cost

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection was assigned the status of a pandemic. As of the beginning of 2021, the Russian Federation ranks fourth in terms of the prevalence of coronavirus infection. Over the period from March 2020 to February 2021, more than 84,000 fatal cases of the disease were recorded in Russia. AIM: However, at the moment, there are no medications with proven effectiveness and safety against the novel coronavirus infection. In this regard, the purpose of our study was to conduct a pharmacoeconomic analysis of medications for etiotropic therapy of all forms of COVID-19 recommended by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (clinical guidelines, version 10 dated February 8, 2021) to identify the best treatment option. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the course of the study, the “cost of illness” was determined for all forms of the disease in an outpatient and inpatient setting. The authors took into account the direct medical costs of medication therapy and diagnostic and treatment procedures. In terms of direct non-medical costs, they calculated the cost of a bed-day excluding medication treatment, and indirect costs included payments for temporary disability sheets. Costs for medications were calculated based on the active ingredient (AI) and the packages for treatment on an outpatient basis and in the case of the hospital setting based on the AI only. The cost of medical and diagnostic procedures was determined based on the Tariff Agreement for 2020 dated December 30, 2019. Next, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Effectiveness criteria were selected based on published clinical trial results for the medications in question. Then, they performed a calculation of the cost-effectiveness coefficients and an incremental analysis. RESULTS: Thus, in the course of the analysis of the cost of illness, the most economically profitable treatment regimens were the ones with hydroxychloroquine both for outpatient treatment (13,150.31 rubles: Mild form, 22,326.44 rubles: Moderate form excluding antibiotic therapy, and 21,513.76 rubles: Moderate form, taking into account antibacterial therapy) and for inpatient treatment (34,441.53 rubles). CONCLUSION: As a result of the cost-effectiveness analysis, the use of favipiravir can be considered optimal (comparative effectiveness research = 17,607.14 rubles), and for the mild form, the optimal medication is umifenovir, since during the incremental analysis, it was found that for therapy with favipiravir, 100 people would need an additional allocation of 96.291 rubles, which, given the form of the disease, is not entirely appropriate.

scholarly journals Pharmacoeconomic analysis of using typical and atypical antipsychotics in schizophrenia

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-24
Author(s):  
I. A. Vilyum ◽  
B. V. Andreev ◽  
M. A. Proskurin ◽  
Yu. E. Balykina
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Atypical Antipsychotics ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Pharmacoeconomic Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Resource Saving ◽  
Antipsychotic Therapy ◽  
Healthcare Budget ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

The aim: to provide a comprehensive pharmacoeconomic evaluation of the maintenance therapy with antipsychotics in outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia.Materials and methods. The analysis was conducted by two mutually complementary steps: an epidemiological study on outpatients with schizophrenia, and a subsequent pharmacoeconomic modeling. Two medical technologies were evaluated and compared: treatment with classical antipsychotics (kA) and treatment with atypical antipsychotics (AA). For the clinical and economic analysis of these treatments, we used a number of indices derived from our retrospective study of patients’ medical records. The cost-effectiveness analysis, incremental analysis, and «budget impact» analysis were performed taking into account the direct and indirect costs of the treatments.Results. We determined the costs of managing outpatients with schizophrenia from the perspective of the healthcare budget and the social burdens; we also looked into the relevance and effectiveness of the current costs at various time intervals – 6, 12 and 24 months. As shown, the treatment strategies involving AA were more budget-consumptive than the kA treatments. even if the treatments were switched to the reproduced AA (up to 100% replacement), the costs would remain to be higher than those for the kA. The «cost-effectiveness» analysis related to «the proportion of stable patients» for the horizons of 6 and 12 months indicated that the reproduced AA would be more economically effective than the kA. However, when the observation period was increased to 24 months, this economic advantage of AA diminished, and the kA drugs had a lower CeR instead. For the «number of hospitalization-free days per year», the use of AA was more cost-effective only versus the 100% use of reproduced AA at the simulated horizon of 12 months. When the use of 100% reference AA or the combined use of reference + reproduced AA was simulated, the treatment with kA remained more economically effective, regardless of the simulated period.Conclusion. The pharmacoeconomic simulation of the antipsychotic therapy in outpatients with schizophrenia suggests the ways to optimize the treatment. Among them, (a) using AA for the treatment of at least 15.6% of patients (those who are employed); keeping the ≥60% use of kA to ensure the optimal resource-saving effect of the treatment; (b) using reproduced AA at the level of ≥70% (instead of the reference AA similar in efficacy and safety) to keep the treatment economically feasible. 

scholarly journals Analisis Efektivitas Biaya Kombinasi Obat Antihipertensi Pada Pasien Rawat Inap Di RS PKU Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta Tahun 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Assyifa Septiani Putri ◽  
Niken Dyahariesti
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Pharmacoeconomic Analysis ◽  
Sampling Technique ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Medical Expenses ◽  
Drug Combination Therapy ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

Terapi kombinasi disarankan pada pasien hipertensi yang memiliki tekanan darah tidak terkontrol dengan terapi tunggal. Biaya pengobatan semakin meningkat setiap tahunnya. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui terapi kombinasi obat antihipertensi yang paling cost effective pada pasien rawat inap RS PKU Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta tahun 2020. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif dengan pendekatan analisis farmakoekonomi metode Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) yang dilakukan secara retrospektif. Teknik pengambilan sampel yang digunakan adalah total sampling. Data dikelompokkan berdasarkan pola terapi pasien kemudian dilakukan analisis berdasarkan ACER dan ICER. Jenis pola terapi kombinasi antihipertensi yang paling banyak digunakan adalah kombinasi dua obat (53%). Terapi dengan ACER terendah yaitu Diuretika + ARB + β Bloker (Rp. 15.257). Hasil ICER kombinasi ACEI + CCB + β Bloker + Diuretikb + Agonis α2 Sentral + ACEI memiliki nilai yang terendah dengan Rp. 25.353 jika dibandingkan dengan terapi standar. Namun, terapi CCB + β Bloker, Diuretika + ACEI + CCB, Diuretika + ARB + β Bloker, ARB + CCB + β Bloker + Agonis α2 Sentral bersifat dominan terhadap terapi standar pada cost effectiveness grid. Sehingga, terapi yang paling cost effective berdasarkan ACER dan ICER adalah Diuretika + ARB + β Bloker.Combination therapy is recommended in hypertensive patients whose blood pressure is not controlled by monotherapy. Medical expenses are increasing every year. This study aims to determine the most cost-effective antihypertensive drug combination therapy for inpatients at PKU Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta Hospital in 2020. This study is a descriptive study with a pharmacoeconomic analysis approach using the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) method which was carried out retrospectively. The sampling technique used is total sampling. The data were grouped based on the patient's therapy pattern and then analyzed based on ACER and ICER. The most widely used combination antihypertensive therapy pattern was a combination of two drugs (53%). The therapy with the lowest ACER was Diuretica + ARB + Blockers (Rp. 15.257). The ICER result of the combination of ACEI + CCB + Blocker + Diureticb + Central α2 Agonist + ACEI has the lowest value with Rp. 25,353 when compared to standard therapy. However, CCB + Blocker, Diuretica + ACEI + CCB, Diuretic + ARB + Blocker, ARB + CCB + Blocker + Central α2 Agonist are dominant over standard therapy on the cost-effectiveness grid. Thus, the most cost-effective therapy based on ACER and ICER is Diuretica + ARB + Blockers.

scholarly journals Cyclosporine versus tacrolimus: cost-effectiveness analysis for renal transplantation in Brazil

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Augusto Afonso Guerra Júnior ◽  
Grazielle Dias Silva ◽  
Eli Iola Gurgel Andrade ◽  
Mariângela Leal Cherchiglia ◽  
Juliana de Oliveira Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Annual Cost ◽  
National Health System ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Average Life Expectancy ◽  
Historical Cohort ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost

OBJECTIVE To analyze the cost-effectiveness of treatment regimens with cyclosporine or tacrolimus, five years after renal transplantation.METHODS This cost-effectiveness analysis was based on historical cohort data obtained between 2000 and 2004 and involved 2,022 patients treated with cyclosporine or tacrolimus, matched 1:1 for gender, age, and type and year of transplantation. Graft survival and the direct costs of medical care obtained from the National Health System (SUS) databases were used as outcome results.RESULTS Most of the patients were women, with a mean age of 36.6 years. The most frequent diagnosis of chronic renal failure was glomerulonephritis/nephritis (27.7%). In five years, the tacrolimus group had an average life expectancy gain of 3.96 years at an annual cost of R$78,360.57 compared with the cyclosporine group with a gain of 4.05 years and an annual cost of R$61,350.44.CONCLUSIONS After matching, the study indicated better survival of patients treated with regimens using tacrolimus. However, regimens containing cyclosporine were more cost-effective.

scholarly journals Pharmacoeconomic analysis of the anidulafungin (EraxisR) in adult patients with invasive candidiasis

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 98-108
Author(s):  
S. V. Nedogoda ◽  
A. S. Salasyuk ◽  
I. N. Barykina ◽  
V. O. Smirnova
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Invasive Candidiasis ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Complete Replacement ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Objective: to assess the economic outcomes of using anidulafungin (Eraxis®) in comparison with the recommended treatment regimens in adult patients with invasive candidiasis.Materials and methods. The economic impact assessment was carried out using “cost–effectiveness” analysis and “budget impact” analysis. “Cost–effectiveness” and “budget impact” analyses were performed in Microsoft Excel model.Results. An analysis of the effectiveness showed that the use of anidulafungin is characterized by higher survival (79.25 % vs 66.17 % for caspofungin and 60.84 % for mikafungin). The cost of anidulafungin was 377.7 thousand rubles, which is comparable with the course of caspofungin and 61 % lower than the cost of micafungin therapy. “Cost–effectiveness” analysis showed that the use of the anidulafungin in the treatment of invasive candidiasis is pharmacoeconomically effective and has a “cost–effectiveness” ratio comparable to caspofungin in terms of the effectiveness of therapy for 7 days and exceeds it in terms of the cost of preserving the patient»s life by 14.5 %. Compared to micafungin, anidulafungin is both more economical and more effective in terms of preserving the patient's life, reaching an advantage of up to 45 %. An analysis of the impact on the budget showed that with the complete replacement of the currently used treatment regimens in the target population of 11,840 patients with invasive candidiasis with anidulafungin, it is possible to reduce the burden on the budget of the healthcare system to 17 % or 1458.6 million rubles in year. The average savings in the 3‑year study horizon, taking into account the gradual switching of 25, 50 and 75 % of the target patient population, amounted to 1277.9 million rubles per year or 14.4 %. A sensitivity analysis confirmed the results.Conclusion. Based on results, it can be concluded that the use of the drug anidulafungin (Eraxis®) in patients with invasive candidiasis is economically the preferred option compared to the use of current antibiotic therapy regimens.

scholarly journals Pharmacoeconomic aspects of the therapy for moderate and severe psoriatic arthritis

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-123
Author(s):  
A. V. Rudakova ◽  
D. G. Tolkacheva ◽  
V. D. Sokolova
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Healthcare System ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Budget Impact ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Cost

Objective: to perform cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment for adult patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with a Russian interleukin- 17А inhibitor netakimab in comparison with other biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) and to evaluate the influence of the inclusion of netakimab in the therapy for PsA on the budget of the Russian healthcare system.Material and methods. The evaluation of cost-effectiveness was performed from the position of the Russian healthcare system for patients with moderate and severe PsA. The evaluation was performed based on the results of the network meta-analysis of the randomized clinical studies. The criterion of clinical effectiveness included the changes in the condition of the joints by the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70) and changes in skin symptoms by the index of the prevalence and severity of psoriasis (PASI 75 and PASI 90) with a recalculation into quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The time horizon of the cost-effectiveness analysis was 2 years. The calculation was based on the registered prices and VAT. If there was an original drug and a biosimilar registered on the pharmaceutical market, the calculation was based on the median of the registered prices. The budget impact analysis of the influence of netakimab inclusion in the therapy for patients with PsA was performed considering the structure of the prescription of bDMARDs and tsDMARDs that was determined in the pharmaco-epidemiological study conducted in the Russian Federation in 2020. The analysis was performed for patients that received medication by the scheme of reimbursement. The time horizon of the study was 3 years old.Results. In the base-case analysis, the cost-effectiveness ratio for netakimab was 1.210 mln rub/QALY (by 66.2–88.5% lower than in cases when comparison drugs were used). The budget impact analysis showed that the inclusion of netakimab in the therapy for PsA could reduce the costs by 376.60 mln rub (21.1%). Considering budget saving, the number of additional patients that can be treated will increase by 26.7% within 3 years.Conclusion. Netakimab is characterized by higher cost-effectiveness in comparison with other bDMARDs (adalimumab, golimumab, guselkumab, ixekizumab, infliximab, secukinumab, ustekinumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept) and tsDMARDs (apremilast, tofacitinib) prescribed in the Russian Federation for patients with PsA. The inclusion of netakimab in the therapy for PsA will reduce the financial burden on the healthcare system.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of the analgesic therapy of postoperative pain

2008 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Regina Secoli ◽  
Kátia Grillo Padilha ◽  
Júlio Litvoc
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Breakthrough Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Clinical Aspects ◽  
Incremental Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Analgesic Therapy ◽  
The Cost

The study aimed to compare cost-effectiveness of analgesic schemes administered to 89 patients submitted to hemorrhoidectomy, on the 1st postoperative day. The descriptive and retrospective study was carried out in a General Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil. In order to carry out the cost-effectiveness analysis, the five most frequently used analgesic schemes were identified in practice. The main outcome was the absence of breakthrough pain episodes. While calculating the costs, analgesics and all devices related to the schemes were taken into consideration. Codeine 120mg+acetaminophen 2000mg was the most effective therapy with the lowest cost per patient with no breakthrough pain episodes ($65.23). Incremental analysis indicated that codeine 120mg+acetaminophen 2000mg+ketoprofen 200mg involved the additional cost of $238.31 in case an extra effectiveness benefit was needed. The analysis showed that the most suitable choice of analgesic therapy should consider the resources available at the institution along with economic and clinical aspects.

scholarly journals Pharmacoeconomic Analysis Of Using Cephalosporin Group In Appendicitis Prophylactic In Rumah Sakit Umum Daerah Subang

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 200
Author(s):  
Yulia Wardati ◽  
Dytha Andri Deswat ◽  
Zainal Muttaqin
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Pharmacoeconomic Analysis ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Standard Drug ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Cost

The administration of cephalosporin group antibiotics in patients with post-surgical appendicitis is necessary to prevent postoperative wounds. This pharmacoeoconomic study was conducted retrospectively in the period of 1 January to 31 December 2015 in RSUD Subang for the purpose of determining the effectiveness of drugs and the cost of antibiotic use of ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, and ceftizoxime injection by Cost Effectiveness Analysis method. The subject of the patient was 78 people. Based on Average Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ACER), the smallest value is ceftriaxone Rp 729.124 / day, while the result of Cost Effectiveness plane with cefotaxime as standard drug, ceftriaxone occupies quadrant IV and ceftizoxime occupies  quadrant I. The result of Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) calculation obtained by difference of value equal  to Rp 106.347 / day hence can be concluded that antibiotic injection of cefotaxime as standard injection antibiotics used by RSUD Subang can be replaced by antibiotic injection of ceftizoxim by adding cost Rp 106.347 / day but need attention to resource especially funds owned and should be selected if sufficient resources are available.

scholarly journals Screening for Melanoma by Primary Health Care Physicians: A Cost—Effectiveness Analysis

1996 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afaf Girgis ◽  
Philip Clarke ◽  
Robert C Burton ◽  
Rob W Sanson—Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Assessment ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Family Practitioners ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Primary Health Care Physicians ◽  
Melanoma Screening

Background and design— Australia has the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, and the incidence is estimated to be doubling every 10 years. Despite advances in the early detection and treatment of melanoma about 800 people still die nationally of the disease each year. A possible strategy for further reducing the mortality from melanoma is an organised programme of population screening for unsuspected lesions in asymptomatic people. Arguments against introducing melanoma screening have been based on cost and the lack of reliable data on the efficacy of any screening tests. To date, however, there has been no systematic economic assessment of the cost effectiveness of melanoma screening. The purpose of this research was to determine whether screening may be potentially cost effective and, therefore, warrants further investigation. A computer was used to simulate the effects of a hypothetical melanoma screening programme that was in operation for 20 years, using cohorts of Australians aged 50 at the start of the programme. Based on this simulation, cost—effectiveness estimates of melanoma screening were calculated. Results— Under the standard assumptions used in the model, and setting the sensitivity of the screening test (visual inspection of the skin) at 60%, cost effectiveness ranged from Aust$6853 per life year saved for men if screening was undertaken five yearly to $12137 if screening was two yearly. For women, it ranged from $11 102 for five yearly screening to $20 877 for two yearly screening. Conclusion— The analysis suggests that a melanoma screening programme could be cost effective, particularly if five yearly screening is implemented by family practitioners for men over the age of 50.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Submandibular Gland Preservation With Sialendoscopy for the Management of Sialolithiasis

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110268
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Acevedo ◽  
Ashley C. Hsu ◽  
Jeffrey C. Yu ◽  
Dale H. Rice ◽  
Daniel I. Kwon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Submandibular Gland ◽  
Average Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Probability Of Success ◽  
Markov Decision Model ◽  
The Cost

Objective To compare the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy with gland excision for the management of submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Study Design Cost-effectiveness analysis. Setting Outpatient surgery centers. Methods A Markov decision model compared the cost-effectiveness of sialendoscopy versus gland excision for managing submandibular gland sialolithiasis. Surgical outcome probabilities were found in the primary literature. The quality of life of patients was represented by health utilities, and costs were estimated from a third-party payer’s perspective. The effectiveness of each intervention was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental costs and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, and a willingness-to-pay ratio of $150,000 per QALY was considered cost-effective. One-way, multivariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to challenge model conclusions. Results Over 10 years, sialendoscopy yielded 9.00 QALYs at an average cost of $8306, while gland excision produced 8.94 QALYs at an average cost of $6103. The ICER for sialendoscopy was $36,717 per QALY gained, making sialendoscopy cost-effective by our best estimates. The model was sensitive to the probability of success and the cost of sialendoscopy. Sialendoscopy must meet a probability-of-success threshold of 0.61 (61%) and cost ≤$11,996 to remain cost-effective. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed sialendoscopy to be cost-effective 60% of the time. Conclusion Sialendoscopy appears to be a cost-effective management strategy for sialolithiasis of the submandibular gland when certain thresholds are maintained. Further studies elucidating the clinical factors that determine successful sialendoscopy may be aided by these thresholds as well as future comparisons of novel technology.

scholarly journals Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis of behavior change communication apps: Assessment of key methods

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 205520762110005
Author(s):  
Cynthia Afedi Hazel ◽  
Sheana Bull ◽  
Elizabeth Greenwell ◽  
Maya Bunik ◽  
Jini Puma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Behavior Change ◽  
Quantitative Measure ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Behavior Change Communication ◽  
Change Communication ◽  
Effectiveness Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

Objective Evidence backing the effectiveness of mobile health technology is growing, and behavior change communication applications (apps) are fast becoming a useful platform for behavioral health programs. However, data to support the cost-effectiveness of these interventions are limited. Suggestions for overcoming the low output of economic data include addressing the methodological challenges for conducting cost-effectiveness analysis of behavior change app programs. This study is a systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of behavior change communication apps and a documentation of the reported challenges for investigating their cost-effectiveness. Materials and methods Four academic databases: Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, EMBASE and Google Scholar, were searched. Eligibility criteria included original articles that use a cost-effectiveness evaluation method, published between 2008 and 2018, and in the English language. Results Out of the 60 potentially eligible studies, 6 used cost-effectiveness analysis method and met the inclusion criteria. Conclusion The evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of behavior change communication apps is insufficient, with all studies reporting significant study challenges for estimating program costs and outcomes. The main challenges included limited or lack of cost data, inappropriate cost measures, difficulty with identifying and quantifying app effectiveness, representing app effects as Quality-adjusted Life Years, and aggregating cost and effects into a single quantitative measure like Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio. These challenges highlight the need for comprehensive economic evaluation methods that balance app data quality issues with practical concerns. This would likely improve the usefulness of cost-effectiveness data for decisions on adoption, implementation, scalability, sustainability, and the benefits of broader healthcare investments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document