Time filter

Source Type

Chalkidou K.,NICE International | Marquez P.,The World Bank | Dhillon P.K.,A+ Network | Teerawattananon Y.,Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program HITAP | And 3 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology

Evidence-informed frameworks for cost-effective cancer prevention and management are essential for delivering equitable outcomes and tackling the growing burden of cancer in all resource settings. Evidence can help address the demand side pressures (ie, pressures exerted by people who need care) faced by economies with high, middle, and low incomes, particularly in the context of transitioning towards (or sustaining) universal health-care coverage. Strong systems, as opposed to technology-based solutions, can drive the development and implementation of evidence-informed frameworks for prevention and management of cancer in an equitable and affordable way. For this to succeed, different stakeholders-including national governments, global donors, the commercial sector, and service delivery institutions-must work together to address the growing burden of cancer across economies of low, middle, and high income. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. Source

Greco G.,London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine | Lorgelly P.,Monash University | Yamabhai I.,Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program HITAP
Health Economics (United Kingdom)

Public health programmes tend to be complex and may combine social strategies with aspects of empowerment, capacity building and knowledge across sectors. The nature of the programmes means that some effects are likely to occur outside the healthcare sector; this breadth impacts on the choice of health and non-health outcomes to measure and value in an economic evaluation. Employing conventional outcome measures in evaluations of public health has been questioned. There are concerns that such measures are too narrow, overlook important dimensions of programme effect and, thus, lead to such interventions being undervalued. This issue is of particular importance for low-income and middle-income countries, which face considerable budget constraints, yet deliver a large proportion of health activities within public health programmes. The need to develop outcome measures, which include broader measures of quality of life, has given impetus to the development of a variety of new, holistic approaches, including Sen's capability framework and measures of subjective wellbeing. Despite their promise, these approaches have not yet been widely applied, perhaps because they present significant methodological challenges. This paper outlines the methodological challenges for the identification and measurement of broader outcomes of public health interventions in economic evaluation in low-income and middle-income countries. © 2016 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Source

Jit M.,Public Health England | Demarteau N.,Glaxosmithkline | Elbasha E.,Merck And Co. | Ginsberg G.,Medical Technology Assessment Sector | And 4 more authors.
BMC Medicine

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that the cost effectiveness of introducing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is considered before such a strategy is implemented. However, developing countries often lack the technical capacity to perform and interpret results of economic appraisals of vaccines. To provide information about the feasibility of using such models in a developing country setting, we evaluated models of HPV vaccination in terms of their capacity, requirements, limitations and comparability.Methods: A literature review identified six HPV vaccination models suitable for low-income and middle-income country use and representative of the literature in terms of provenance and model structure. Each model was adapted by its developers using standardised data sets representative of two hypothetical developing countries (a low-income country with no screening and a middle-income country with limited screening). Model predictions before and after vaccination of adolescent girls were compared in terms of HPV prevalence and cervical cancer incidence, as was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of vaccination under different scenarios.Results: None of the models perfectly reproduced the standardised data set provided to the model developers. However, they agreed that large decreases in type 16/18 HPV prevalence and cervical cancer incidence are likely to occur following vaccination. Apart from the Thai model (in which vaccine and non-vaccine HPV types were combined), vaccine-type HPV prevalence dropped by 75% to 100%, and vaccine-type cervical cancer incidence dropped by 80% to 100% across the models (averaging over age groups). The most influential factors affecting cost effectiveness were the discount rate, duration of vaccine protection, vaccine price and HPV prevalence. Demographic change, access to treatment and data resolution were found to be key issues to consider for models in developing countries.Conclusions: The results indicated the usefulness of considering results from several models and sets of modelling assumptions in decision making. Modelling groups were prepared to share their models and expertise to work with stakeholders in developing countries.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/9/55. © 2011 World Health Organization; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Source

Youngkong S.,Radboud University Nijmegen | Baltussen R.,Radboud University Nijmegen | Tantivess S.,Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program HITAP | Koolman X.,Erasmus University Rotterdam | Teerawattananon Y.,Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program HITAP
BMC Health Services Research

Background: Although a sizeable budget is available for HIV/AIDS control in Thailand, there will never be enough resources to implement every programme for all target groups at full scale. As such, there is a need to prioritize HIV/AIDS programmes. However, as of yet, there is no evidence on the criteria that should guide the priority setting of HIV/AIDS programmes in Thailand, including their relative importance. Also, it is not clear whether different stakeholders share similar preferences. Methods: Criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand were identified in group discussions with policy makers, people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), and community members (i.e. village health volunteers (VHVs)). On the basis of these, discrete choice experiments were designed and administered among 28 policy makers, 74 PLWHA, and 50 VHVs. Results: In order of importance, policy makers expressed a preference for interventions that are highly effective, that are preventive of nature (as compared to care and treatment), that are based on strong scientific evidence, that target high risk groups (as compared to teenagers, adults, or children), and that target both genders (rather than only men or women). PLWHA and VHVs had similar preferences but the former group expressed a strong preference for care and treatment for AIDS patients. Conclusions: The study has identified criteria for priority setting of HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand, and revealed that different stakeholders have different preferences vis -à- vis these criteria. This could be used for a broad ranking of interventions, and as such as a basis for more detailed priority setting, taking into account also qualitative criteria. © 2010 Youngkong et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Source

Pattanaphesaj J.,Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program HITAP | Teerawattananon Y.,Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program HITAP
BMC Public Health

Background: Following universal access to antiretroviral therapy in Thailand, evidence from National AIDS Spending Assessment indicates a decreasing proportion of expenditure on prevention interventions. To prompt policymakers to revitalize HIV prevention, this study identifies a comprehensive list of HIV/AIDs preventive interventions that are likely to be effective and cost-effective in Thailand. Methods: A systematic review of the national and international literature on HIV prevention strategies from 1997 to 2008 was undertaken. The outcomes used to consider the effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions were changes in HIV risk behaviour and HIV incidence. Economic evaluations that presented their results in terms of cost per HIV infection averted or cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were also included. All studies were assessed against quality criteria. Results: The findings demonstrated that school based-sex education plus life-skill programs, voluntary and routine HIV counselling and testing, male condoms, street outreach programs, needle and syringe programs, programs for the prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission, male circumcision, screening blood products and donated organs for HIV, and increased alcohol tax were all effective in reducing HIV infection among target populations in a cost-effective manner. Conclusion: We found very limited local evidence regarding the effectiveness of HIV interventions amongst specific high risk populations. This underlines the urgent need to prioritise health research resources to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HIV interventions aimed at reducing HIV infection among high risk groups in Thailand. © 2010 Pattanaphesaj and Teerawattananon; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Source

Discover hidden collaborations