Many Miles to Go: A Systematic Review of the State of Cost-Utility Analyses in Brazil

Alessandro G. Campolina, Luciana M. Rozman, Tassia C. Decimoni, Roseli Leandro, Hillegonda M. D. Novaes and Patrícia Coelho De Soárez ()
Additional contact information
Alessandro G. Campolina: Cancer Institute of Sao Paulo (ICESP), University of São Paulo School of Medicine
Luciana M. Rozman: University of São Paulo School of Medicine
Tassia C. Decimoni: University of São Paulo School of Medicine
Roseli Leandro: University of São Paulo School of Medicine
Hillegonda M. D. Novaes: University of São Paulo School of Medicine
Patrícia Coelho De Soárez: University of São Paulo School of Medicine

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2017, vol. 15, issue 2, No 5, 163-172

Abstract: Abstract Background Little is known about the quality and quantity of cost-utility analyses (CUAs) in Brazil. Objective The objective of this study was to provide a systematic review of published CUAs of healthcare technologies in Brazil. Methods We performed a systematic review of economic evaluations studies published in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature), SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment) Database, Web of Science, Scopus, Bireme (Biblioteca Regional de Medicina), BVS ECOS (Health Economics database of the Brazilian Virtual Library of Health), and SISREBRATS (Sistema de Informação da Rede Brasileira de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde [Brazilian Network for the Evaluation of Health Technologies]) from 1980 to 2013. Articles were included if they were CUAs according to the classification devised by Drummond et al. Two independent reviewers screened articles for relevance and carried out data extraction. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or through consultation with a third reviewer. We performed a qualitative narrative synthesis. Results Of the 535 health economic evaluations (HEEs) relating to Brazil, only 40 were CUAs and therefore included in the analysis. Most studies adhered to methodological guidelines for quality of reporting and 77.5% used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the health outcome. Of these studies, 51.6% did not report the population used to elicit preferences for outcomes and 45.2% used a specific population such as expert opinion. The preference elicitation method was not reported in 58.1% of these studies. The majority (80.6%) of studies did not report the instrument used to derive health state valuations and no publication reported whether tariffs (or preference weights) were national or international. No study mentioned the methodology used to estimate QALYs. Conclusions Many published Brazilian cost-utility studies adhere to key recommended general methods for HEE; however, the use of QALY calculations is far from being the current international standard. Development of health preferences research can contribute to quality improvement of health technology assessment reports in Brazil.

Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0290-x Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:15:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0290-x

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0290-x

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().