Improving economic evaluations in stroke: A report from the ESO Health Economics Working Group

15Citations
Citations of this article
56Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: Approaches to economic evaluations of stroke therapies are varied and inconsistently described. An objective of the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) Health Economics Working Group is to standardise and improve the economic evaluations of interventions for stroke. Methods: The ESO Health Economics Working Group and additional experts were contacted to develop a protocol and a guidance document for data collection for economic evaluations of stroke therapies. A modified Delphi approach, including a survey and consensus processes, was used to agree on content. We also asked the participants about resources that could be shared to improve economic evaluations of interventions for stroke. Results: Of 28 experts invited, 16 (57%) completed the initial survey, with representation from universities, government, and industry. More than half of the survey respondents endorsed 13 specific items to include in a standard resource use questionnaire. Preferred functional/quality of life outcome measures to use for economic evaluations were the modified Rankin Scale (14 respondents, 88%) and the EQ-5D instrument (11 respondents, 69%). Of the 12 respondents who had access to data used in economic evaluations, 10 (83%) indicated a willingness to share data. A protocol template and a guidance document for data collection were developed and are presented in this article. Conclusion: The protocol template and guidance document for data collection will support a more standardised and transparent approach for economic evaluations of stroke care.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cadilhac, D. A., Kim, J., Wilson, A., Berge, E., Patel, A., Ali, M., … Lees, K. R. (2020). Improving economic evaluations in stroke: A report from the ESO Health Economics Working Group. European Stroke Journal, 5(2), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396987319897466

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free