Author:
Sittimart Manit,Rattanavipapong Waranya,Mirelman Andrew J.,Hung Trinh Manh,Dabak Saudamini,Downey Laura E.,Jit Mark,Teerawattananon Yot,Turner Hugo C.
Abstract
AbstractThe term ‘perspective’ in the context of economic evaluations and costing studies in healthcare refers to the viewpoint that an analyst has adopted to define the types of costs and outcomes to consider in their studies. However, there are currently notable variations in terms of methodological recommendations, definitions, and applications of different perspectives, depending on the objective or intended user of the study. This can make it a complex area for stakeholders when interpreting these studies. Consequently, there is a need for a comprehensive overview regarding the different types of perspectives employed in such analyses, along with the corresponding implications of their use. This is particularly important, in the context of low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where practical guidelines may be less well-established and infrastructure for conducting economic evaluations may be more limited. This article addresses this gap by summarising the main types of perspectives commonly found in the literature to a broad audience (namely the patient, payer, health care providers, healthcare sector, health system, and societal perspectives), providing their most established definitions and outlining the corresponding implications of their uses in health economic studies, with examples particularly from LMIC settings. We then discuss important considerations when selecting the perspective and present key arguments to consider when deciding whether the societal perspective should be used. We conclude that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to what perspective should be used and the perspective chosen will be influenced by the context, policymakers'/stakeholders’ viewpoints, resource/data availability, and intended use of the analysis. Moving forward, considering the ongoing issues regarding the variation in terminology and practice in this area, we urge that more standardised definitions of the different perspectives and the boundaries between them are further developed to support future studies and guidelines, as well as to improve the interpretation and comparison of health economic evidence.
Funder
National Institute for Health and Care Research
UK Research and Innovation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference89 articles.
1. Kristensen FB, Husereau D, Huić M, Drummond M, Berger ML, Bond K, et al. Identifying the need for good practices in health technology assessment: summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA. Value Health. 2019;22(1):13–20.
2. Nemzoff C, Ruiz F, Chalkidou K, Mehndiratta A, Guinness L, Cluzeau F, et al. Adaptive health technology assessment to facilitate priority setting in low-and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(4): e004549.
3. World Health Organization. SEA/RC66/R4-Health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage. WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia; 2013.
4. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for health benefit package design—part II: a practical guide. Int J Health Policy Manage. 2022;11(10):2327–36.
5. Baltussen R, Jansen M, Oortwijn W. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for legitimate health benefit package design—part I: conceptual framework. Int J Health Policy Manage. 2022;11(10):2319–26.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献