Display options
Cite
Wilkinson T, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, et al. The International Decision Support Initiative Reference Case for Economic Evaluation: An Aid to Thought. Value Health. 2016;19(8):921-928doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.015.
Wilkinson, T., Sculpher, M. J., Claxton, K., Revill, P., Briggs, A., Cairns, J. A., Teerawattananon, Y., Asfaw, E., Lopert, R., Culyer, A. J., & Walker, D. G. (2016). The International Decision Support Initiative Reference Case for Economic Evaluation: An Aid to Thought. Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 19(8), 921-928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.015
Wilkinson, Thomas, et al. "The International Decision Support Initiative Reference Case for Economic Evaluation: An Aid to Thought." Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research vol. 19,8 (2016): 921-928. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.015
Wilkinson T, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Revill P, Briggs A, Cairns JA, Teerawattananon Y, Asfaw E, Lopert R, Culyer AJ, Walker DG. The International Decision Support Initiative Reference Case for Economic Evaluation: An Aid to Thought. Value Health. 2016 Dec;19(8):921-928. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.015. PMID: 27987641.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Value Health. 2016 Dec;19(8):921-928. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.015.

The International Decision Support Initiative Reference Case for Economic Evaluation: An Aid to Thought.

Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Thomas Wilkinson, Mark J Sculpher, Karl Claxton, Paul Revill, Andrew Briggs, John A Cairns, Yot Teerawattananon, Elias Asfaw, Ruth Lopert, Anthony J Culyer, Damian G Walker

Affiliations

  1. PRICELESS SA, Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Unit, School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. Electronic address: [email protected].
  2. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
  3. Department of Economics and Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
  4. Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, UK.
  5. Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK.
  6. Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand.
  7. Economics department, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
  8. Department of Health Policy and Management, George Washington University, Washington DC, USA; Management Sciences for Health, Arlington VA, USA.
  9. Department of Economics & Related Studies and Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK.
  10. Global Development Program, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, USA.

PMID: 27987641 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.015

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Policymakers in high-, low-, and middle-income countries alike face challenging choices about resource allocation in health. Economic evaluation can be useful in providing decision makers with the best evidence of the anticipated benefits of new investments, as well as their expected opportunity costs-the benefits forgone of the options not chosen. To guide the decisions of health systems effectively, it is important that the methods of economic evaluation are founded on clear principles, are applied systematically, and are appropriate to the decision problems they seek to inform.

METHODS: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of economic evaluations of health technologies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), commissioned a "reference case" through the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI) to guide future evaluations, and improve both the consistency and usefulness to decision makers.

RESULTS: The iDSI Reference Case draws on previous insights from the World Health Organization, the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health Care, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Comprising 11 key principles, each accompanied by methodological specifications and reporting standards, the iDSI Reference Case also serves as a means of identifying priorities for methods research, and can be used as a framework for capacity building and technical assistance in LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS: The iDSI Reference Case is an aid to thought, not a substitute for it, and should not be followed slavishly without regard to context, culture, or history. This article presents the iDSI Reference Case and discusses the rationale, approach, components, and application in LMICs.

Copyright © 2016 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

MeSH terms

Publication Types