Suppr超能文献

南非临床指南中的健康经济证据:一项混合方法研究。

Health economic evidence in clinical guidelines in South Africa: a mixed-methods study.

机构信息

Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, Cape Town, South Africa.

SAMRC Centre for Health Economics and Decision Science, PRICELESS SA, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Jul 26;21(1):738. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06747-z.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Evidence-informed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are useful tools to inform transparent healthcare decision-making. Consideration of health economic evidence (HEE) during CPG development in a structured manner remains a challenge globally and locally. This study explored the views, current practice, training needs and challenges faced by CPG developers in the production and use of HEE for CPGs in South Africa.

METHODS

This mixed-methods study comprised an online survey and a focus group discussion. The survey was piloted and subsequently sent to CPG role players - evidence reviewers, CPG panellists, academics involved with training in relevant disciplines like health economics and public health, implementers and funders. The focus group participants hold strategic roles in CPG development and health economic activities nationally. The survey evaluated mean values, measures of variability, and percentages for Likert scales, while narrative components were thematically analysed. Focus group data were manually coded, thematically analysed and verified.

RESULTS

The survey (n = 55 respondents to 245 surveys distributed) and one focus group (n = 5 participants from 10 people invited) occurred between October 2018 and February 2019. We found the most consistent reason why HEE should inform CPG decisions was 'making more efficient use of limited financial resources'. This was explained by numerous context and methodological barriers. Focus groups participants noted that consideration of complex HEE are not achievable without bolstering skills in applying evidence-based medicine principles. Further concerns include lack of clarity of standard methods; inequitable and opaque topic selection across private and public sectors; inadequate skills of CPG panel members to use HEE; and the ability of health economists to communicate results in accessible ways. Overall, in the absence of clarity about process and methods, politics and interests may drive CPG decisions about which interventions to implement.

CONCLUSIONS

HEE should ideally be considered in CPG decisions in South Africa. However, this will remain hampered until the CPG community agree on methods and processes for using HEE in CPGs. Focused investment by national government to address the challenges identified by the study is imperative for a better return on investment as National Health Insurance moves forward.

摘要

背景

循证临床实践指南(CPG)是为透明医疗决策提供信息的有用工具。以结构化的方式在 CPG 开发过程中考虑健康经济证据(HEE)仍然是全球和本地的一个挑战。本研究探讨了南非 CPG 开发者在 CPG 中制作和使用 HEE 方面的观点、当前做法、培训需求和面临的挑战。

方法

这项混合方法研究包括在线调查和焦点小组讨论。该调查进行了试点,随后发送给 CPG 角色扮演者 - 证据审查员、CPG 小组成员、参与健康经济学和公共卫生等相关学科培训的学者、实施者和资助者。焦点小组参与者在国家 CPG 开发和健康经济活动中担任战略角色。该调查评估了李克特量表的平均值、变异性度量和百分比,而叙事部分则进行了主题分析。焦点小组数据经过手动编码、主题分析和验证。

结果

调查(在 2018 年 10 月至 2019 年 2 月期间向 245 份调查中的 55 名受访者发送)和一次焦点小组(在邀请的 10 人中的 5 人参加)。我们发现,最一致的原因是“更有效地利用有限的财务资源”,这需要 HEE 来告知 CPG 决策。这是由许多背景和方法学障碍解释的。焦点小组参与者指出,如果不加强应用循证医学原则的技能,就不可能考虑复杂的 HEE。进一步的问题包括标准方法缺乏清晰度;私营和公共部门之间的主题选择不公平和不透明;CPG 小组成员使用 HEE 的技能不足;以及卫生经济学家以可访问的方式交流结果的能力。总体而言,在缺乏关于流程和方法的明确性的情况下,政治和利益可能会影响 CPG 对实施哪些干预措施的决策。

结论

在南非,CPG 决策中应理想地考虑 HEE。然而,在 CPG 社区就使用 HEE 制作 CPG 的方法和流程达成一致之前,这仍将受到阻碍。国家政府集中投资解决研究中确定的挑战对于国家健康保险向前推进的更好投资回报至关重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7ae5/8311952/5e8a08a3e50e/12913_2021_6747_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验