Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression

Juliane Andrea Duevel (), Lena Hasemann, Luz María Peña-Longobardo, Beatriz Rodríguez-Sánchez, Isaac Aranda-Reneo, Juan Oliva (), Julio López-Bastida and Wolfgang Greiner
Additional contact information
Juliane Andrea Duevel: Bielefeld University, School of Public Health
Lena Hasemann: Bielefeld University, School of Public Health
Luz María Peña-Longobardo: University of Castilla-La Mancha
Beatriz Rodríguez-Sánchez: University of Castilla-La Mancha
Isaac Aranda-Reneo: University of Castilla-La Mancha
Julio López-Bastida: University of Castilla-La Mancha
Wolfgang Greiner: Bielefeld University, School of Public Health

Health Economics Review, 2020, vol. 10, issue 1, 1-19

Abstract: Abstract Background Depressive disorders are associated with a high burden of disease. However, due to the burden posed by the disease on not only the sufferers, but also on their relatives, there is an ongoing debate about which costs to include and, hence, which perspective should be applied. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to examine whether the change between healthcare payer and societal perspective leads to different conclusions of cost-utility analyses in the case of depression. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted to identify economic evaluations of interventions in depression, launched on Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Registry of the Tufts University using a ten-year time horizon (2008–2018). In a two-stepped screening process, cost-utility studies were selected by means of specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, relevant findings was extracted and, if not fully stated, calculated by the authors of this work. Results Overall, 53 articles with 92 complete economic evaluations, reporting costs from healthcare payer/provider and societal perspective, were identified. More precisely, 22 estimations (24%) changed their results regarding the cost-effectiveness quadrant when the societal perspective was included. Furthermore, 5% of the ICURs resulted in cost-effectiveness regarding the chosen threshold (2% of them became dominant) when societal costs were included. However, another four estimations (4%) showed the opposite result: these interventions were no longer cost-effective after the inclusion of societal costs. Conclusions Summarising the disparities in results and applied methods, the results show that societal costs might alter the conclusions in cost-utility analyses. Hence, the relevance of the perspectives chosen should be taken into account when carrying out an economic evaluation. This systematic review demonstrates that the results of economic evaluations can be affected by different methods available for estimating non-healthcare costs.

Keywords: Cost-utility analysis; CUA; Quality-adjusted life years; QALY; Societal perspective; Incremental cost-utility ratio; ICUR; Direct costs; Indirect costs; Depression (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-020-00288-7 Abstract (text/html)

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:hecrev:v:10:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-020-00288-7

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/journal/13561

DOI: 10.1186/s13561-020-00288-7

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics Review is currently edited by J. Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg

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