-
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Jan 2022Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic... (Review)
Review
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
Topics: Checklist; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Economics, Medical; Humans; Publishing; Research Design
PubMed: 35031096
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.11.1351 -
Clinical Oncology (Royal College of... Sep 2022
Topics: Delivery of Health Care; Economics, Medical; Humans; Neoplasms
PubMed: 35781405
DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2022.05.014 -
The American Journal of Cardiology Sep 2019
Topics: Female; Financial Audit; Fraud; Humans; Male; Personnel Management; Practice Management, Medical; Theft
PubMed: 31326075
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.04.057 -
Diabetes Care Jul 2020The convergence of advances in medical science, human biology, data science, and technology has enabled the generation of new insights into the phenotype known as... (Review)
Review
The convergence of advances in medical science, human biology, data science, and technology has enabled the generation of new insights into the phenotype known as "diabetes." Increased knowledge of this condition has emerged from populations around the world, illuminating the differences in how diabetes presents, its variable prevalence, and how best practice in treatment varies between populations. In parallel, focus has been placed on the development of tools for the application of precision medicine to numerous conditions. This Consensus Report presents the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative in partnership with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), including its mission, the current state of the field, and prospects for the future. Expert opinions are presented on areas of precision diagnostics and precision therapeutics (including prevention and treatment), and key barriers to and opportunities for implementation of precision diabetes medicine, with better care and outcomes around the globe, are highlighted. Cases where precision diagnosis is already feasible and effective (i.e., monogenic forms of diabetes) are presented, while the major hurdles to the global implementation of precision diagnosis of complex forms of diabetes are discussed. The situation is similar for precision therapeutics, in which the appropriate therapy will often change over time owing to the manner in which diabetes evolves within individual patients. This Consensus Report describes a foundation for precision diabetes medicine, while highlighting what remains to be done to realize its potential. This, combined with a subsequent, detailed evidence-based review (due 2022), will provide a roadmap for precision medicine in diabetes that helps improve the quality of life for all those with diabetes.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Consensus; Diabetes Mellitus; Endocrinology; Europe; Evidence-Based Medicine; Expert Testimony; Financial Management; Health Plan Implementation; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Precision Medicine; Quality of Life; Societies, Medical; United States
PubMed: 32561617
DOI: 10.2337/dci20-0022 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Sep 2021
Topics: Decision Making; Economics, Medical; Humans; Terminal Care
PubMed: 33685946
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002388 -
The American Journal of Cardiology Oct 2019
Topics: Accounting; Humans; Physicians; Practice Management, Medical
PubMed: 31443899
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.05.076 -
Value in Health : the Journal of the... Jan 2022Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic...
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Checklist; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Economics, Medical; Female; Humans; Peer Review; Research Personnel; Stakeholder Participation
PubMed: 35031088
DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2021.10.008 -
Health Economics Jul 2022Until recently, there has been a consensus that clinicians seeking to assess patient risks of illness should condition risk assessments on all observed patient...
Until recently, there has been a consensus that clinicians seeking to assess patient risks of illness should condition risk assessments on all observed patient covariates with predictive power. The broad idea is that knowing more about patients enables more accurate predictions of their health risks and, hence, better clinical decisions. This consensus has recently unraveled with respect to a specific covariate, namely race. There have been increasing calls for race-free risk assessment, arguing that using race to predict health risks contributes to racial disparities and inequities in health care. In some medical fields, leading institutions have recommended race-free risk assessment. An important open question is how race-free risk assessment would affect the quality of clinical decisions. Considering the matter from the patient-centered perspective of medical economics yields a disturbing conclusion: Race-free risk assessment would harm patients of all races.
PubMed: 35791466
DOI: 10.1002/hec.4569 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Feb 2023
Topics: Humans; India; Marriage; Socioeconomic Factors; Spouse Abuse; Medicine; Ethics, Medical; Education, Medical; Professionalism
PubMed: 36477159
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp2208792