Economic evaluation of policy initiatives in the organisation and delivery of healthcare: a case study of gastroenterology endoscopy services

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Ian T Russell²  John G Williams²  Wai-Yee Cheung²  Nishma Patel¹  M Fasihul Alam¹  David Cohen¹ 

[1] Faculty of Life Sciences and Education, University of South Wales, Pontypridd CF37 1DL, UK;College of Medicine, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK

关键词: Cost;    Endoscopy;    Modernisation;    Health policy;    Evaluation;    Cost effectiveness;   

Others  :  809723
DOI  :  10.1186/1478-7547-12-7

 received in 2013-01-07, accepted in 2014-02-07,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Complex clinical interventions are increasingly subject to evaluation by randomised trial linked to economic evaluation. However evaluations of policy initiatives tend to eschew experimental designs in favour of interpretative perspectives which rarely allow the economic evaluation methods used in clinical trials. As evidence of the cost effectiveness of such initiatives is critical in informing policy, it is important to explore whether conventional economic evaluation methods apply to experimental evaluations of policy initiatives.

Methods

We used mixed methods based on a quasi-experimental design to evaluate a policy initiative whose aim was to expedite the modernisation of gastroenterology endoscopy services in England. We compared 10 sites which had received funding and support to modernise their endoscopy services with 10 controls. We collected data from five waves of patients undergoing endoscopy. The economic component of the study compared sites by levels of investment in modernisation and patients’ use of health service resources, time off work and health related quality of life.

Results

We found no statistically significant difference between intervention and control sites in investment in modernisation or any patient outcome including health.

Conclusions

This study highlights difficulties in applying the rigour of a randomised trial and associated technique of economic evaluation to a policy initiative. It nevertheless demonstrates the feasibility of using this approach although further work is needed to demonstrate its generalisability in other applications. The present application shows that the small incentives offered to intervention sites did not enhance modernisation of gastroenterology endoscopy services or improve patient outcomes.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Cohen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf webcite
• [2]Gold M, Siegel L, Russell LB, Weinstein MC: Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
• [3]Walsham G: Doing interpretive research. Eur J Inform Syst 2006, 15(3):320-330.
• [4]Pawson R, Tilley N: Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage; 1997.
• [5]Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008, 337:979-983.
• [6]Williams JG, Cheung WY, Cohen D, Hutchings H, Jerzembek G, Rapport F, Russell IT, Seagrove A, Thorne K: Evaluating innovations in the delivery and organisation of gastroenterology services initiated directly or indirectly by the Modernising Endoscopy Services programme of the NHS Modernisation Agency: (ENIGMA). http://www.netscc.ac.uk/hsdr/files/project/SDO_FR_08-1304-046_V01.pdf webcite
• [7]NHS Jobs http://www.jobs.nhs.uk webcite
• [8]British Society for Gastroenterology http://www.bsg.org.uk/education/general/in-this-section.html webcite
• [9]Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, O’Brien B, Stoddart G: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Programmes in Health Care. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
• [10]Database of Instruments for Resource Use Measurement http://www.dirum.org/ webcite
• [11]Hale JP, Cohen D, Maughan TS, Stephens RJ: Costs and consequences of three chemotherapy regimens in metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2002, 86:1684-1690.
• [12]Thorn J, Coast J, Cohen D, Hollingworth W, Knapp M, Noble S, Wordsworth S, Hughes D: Resource use measurement based on patient recall: issues and challenges for economic evaluation. Applied Health Econ Health Policy 2013, 11(3):155-161.
• [13]Curtis L, Netten A: Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2006. Canterbury: University of Kent; 2006.
• [14]Netten A, Curtis L: Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2002. Canterbury: University of Kent at Canterbury; 2002.
• [15]NHS Reference Costs 2005/6 http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_082571 webcite
• [16]National Office of Statistics http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html webcite
• [17]British National Formulary http://bnf.org/bnf/ webcite
• [18]Claxton K, Walker S, Palmer S, Sculpher M: Appropriate Perspectives for Health Care Decisions. Working Papers 054, University of York, cherp Centre for Health Economics; 2010.
• [19]EQ-5D http://www.euroqol.org webcite
• [20]Rice N, Jones J: Multi level models and health economics. Health Econ 1997, 6(6):561-575.
• [21]Rasbaxh J, Steele F, Browne W, Prosser B: A users’ Guide to MLWin (version 2.0). Bristol: University of Bristol; 2004.
• [22]Efron B, Tibshirani R: An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1993.
• [23]RESPECT trial team: Cost-effectiveness of shared pharmaceutical care for elderly patients: trial findings of randomised evaluation of shared pharmaceutical care for the elderly in the community over time. Br J Gen Pract 2010, 60:e20-e27.
• [24]RESPECT trial team: Effectiveness of shared pharmaceutical care for elderly patients: trial findings of randomised evaluation of shared pharmaceutical care for the elderly in the community over time. Br J Gen Pract 2010, 60:e10-e19.