WHO promotes the use of research in policy-making to drive improvements in health, including in achieving Sustainable Development Goals such as tobacco control. The European Union's new €95 billion Horizon Europe research framework programme parallels these aims, and also includes commitments to fund economic evaluations. However, researchers often express frustration at the perceived lack of attention to scientific evidence during policy-making. For example, some researchers claim that evidence regarding the return on investment from optimal implementation of evidence-based policies is frequently overlooked. An increasingly large body of literature acknowledges inevitable barriers to research use, but also analyses facilitators encouraging such use. This opinion piece describes how some research is integrated into policy-making. It highlights two recent reviews. One examines impact assessments of 36 multi-project research programmes and identifies three characteristics of projects more likely to influence policy-making. These include a focus on healthcare system needs, engagement of stakeholders, and research conducted for organizations supported by structures to receive and use evidence. The second review suggests that such characteristics are likely to occur as part of a comprehensive national health research system strategy, especially one integrated into the healthcare system. We also describe two policy-informing economic evaluations conducted in Spain. These examined the most cost-effective package of evidence-based tobacco control interventions and the cost-effectiveness of different strategies to increase screening coverage for cervical cancer. Both projects focused on issues of healthcare concern and involved considerable stakeholder engagement. The Spanish examples reinforce some lessons from the global literature and, therefore, could help demonstrate to authorities in Spain the value of developing comprehensive health research systems, possibly following the interfaces and receptor model. The aim of this would be to integrate needs assessment and stakeholder engagement with structures spanning the research and health systems. In such structures, economic evaluation evidence could be collated, analysed by experts in relation to healthcare needs, and fed into both policy-making as appropriate, and future research calls. The increasingly large local and global evidence base on research utilization could inform detailed implementation of this approach once accepted as politically desirable. Given the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing the cost-effectiveness of healthcare systems and return on investment of public health interventions becomes even more important.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9206096 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00875-6 | DOI Listing |
Rheumatology (Oxford)
January 2025
Department of Rheumatology, Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Herne, Germany.
Objectives: To compare the utility values of Spondyloarthritis (SpA)-specific ASAS Health Index (U-ASAS-HI) to generic utilities and to understand the contribution of health outcomes, personal- and country-level factors to the U-ASAS-HI.
Methods: Ancillary analysis of the ASAS-HI international validation study. SpA patients who completed the ASAS-HI, 5-level EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaires were selected, and utilities calculated.
Front Public Health
January 2025
School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Introduction: HIV self-testing (HIVST) is an innovative strategy that has been shown to increase uptake of HIV testing compared to conventional facility-based testing. HIVST implementation with digital-based supports may help facilitate testing accessibility and linkage to care after a reactive self-test. Economic evidence around community-based implementation of HIVST is growing; however, economic evidence around digital-based HIVST approaches remains limited.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFFront Public Health
January 2025
Rajavithi Hospital, College of Medicine, Ministry of Public Health, Rangsit University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Objective: This study aimed to assess the financial impact of different adoption rates of insulin glargine (IGlar) treatment compared to isophane protamine (neutral protamine hagedorn [NPH]) insulin treatment for patients with type-2 diabetes (T2D) and severe hypoglycemia in Thailand from the payer's perspective.
Methods: The budget impact analysis (BIA) model over a period of 5 years was used to estimate the net budget impact (NBI) of IGlar treatment by comparing the total budget expenditures under two scenarios: scenario 1 involved only NPH insulin and scenario 2 included the introduction of IGlar. The total budget included either the cost of insulin or a combination of the costs of insulin and the expense related to severe hypoglycemia.
Sci Rep
January 2025
Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University Hospital, 103 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea.
Lumbar foraminal stenosis can be surgically treated by foraminal decompression or facet joint resection and fusion (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, TLIF). While conventional foraminal decompression poses a risk of segmental instability, the endoscopic approach (extended endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy, EELF) resects only the ventral part of the facet joint with a horizontal surgical trajectory. A prospective observational study was performed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of EELF versus TLIF.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!