OD45 Evaluating Quality In Health Economics: Quality Appraisal Checklist For Systematic Reviews Of Studies Eliciting Health State Utility Values

Introduction The reliability of cost–utility analyses depends on the quality of health state utility values (HSUVs). Given the increasing number of studies eliciting HSUVs, systematic reviews (SRs) are vital to economic evaluations. Nevertheless, a universally acceptable quality appraisal (QA) tool specific to the SRs of HSUV studies is lacking—this study aimed to develop one and fill this gap. Methods We employed a mixed-method approach, starting with a rapid review to identify QA dimensions, QA items, and terminology in the SRs of HSUV-eliciting studies. This informed a modified Delphi process with a seven-member international expert panel, aiming to define key terms, refine the QA tool dimensions, and establish relevant signaling questions. The experts participated in two anonymous online survey rounds interspersed with structured feedback, enabling iterative refinement of their views. Following these surveys, a virtual face-to-face meeting was held to resolve outstanding issues. Consensus was defined a priori at all stages of the modified Delphi process. Results The rapid review identified three QA dimensions and 16 initial items, noting the diverse terminologies in defining QA. Response rates to the first- and second-round questionnaires and the virtual consensus meeting were 100, 86, and 71 percent, leading to a consensus on the definitions of scientific quality, QA, the three QA dimensions (reporting, methodological limitation, and risk of bias and relevance), and scope of the QA tool. The number of QA items was refined to 14: all relevant to reporting, six to relevance, and 11 to methodological limitations and bias risk dimensions. The QA tool underscores distinct evaluations for each dimension. Conclusions We present the first version of a QA checklist designed to provide SR authors with a tool to appraise the quality of HSUV-eliciting studies comprehensively. The QA tool aims to (i) facilitate QA in SRs of HSUV elicitation studies, (ii) promote consistency in the appraisal process, and (iii) emphasize the importance of differentiating between reporting quality, methodology, and relevance.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462324001727
Primary Topic
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

OD45 Evaluating Quality In Health Economics: Quality Appraisal Checklist For Systematic Reviews Of Studies Eliciting Health State Utility Values

Muchandifunga Trust Muchadeyi, Rachel D. Eckford, Tessa Peasgood, Michael Schlander et al.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
article

OD45 Evaluating Quality In Health Economics: Quality Appraisal Checklist For Systematic Reviews Of Studies Eliciting Health State Utility Values

Muchandifunga Trust Muchadeyi, Rachel D. Eckford, Tessa Peasgood, Michael Schlander, Yan Feng, Michela Meregaglia, Gian Luca Di Tanna, Jasper Ubels, K. Hernández-Villafuerte, Stavros Petrou
article en

Abstract

Introduction The reliability of cost–utility analyses depends on the quality of health state utility values (HSUVs). Given the increasing number of studies eliciting HSUVs, systematic reviews (SRs) are vital to economic evaluations. Nevertheless, a universally acceptable quality appraisal (QA) tool specific to the SRs of HSUV studies is lacking—this study aimed to develop one and fill this gap. Methods We employed a mixed-method approach, starting with a rapid review to identify QA dimensions, QA items, and terminology in the SRs of HSUV-eliciting studies. This informed a modified Delphi process with a seven-member international expert panel, aiming to define key terms, refine the QA tool dimensions, and establish relevant signaling questions. The experts participated in two anonymous online survey rounds interspersed with structured feedback, enabling iterative refinement of their views. Following these surveys, a virtual face-to-face meeting was held to resolve outstanding issues. Consensus was defined a priori at all stages of the modified Delphi process. Results The rapid review identified three QA dimensions and 16 initial items, noting the diverse terminologies in defining QA. Response rates to the first- and second-round questionnaires and the virtual consensus meeting were 100, 86, and 71 percent, leading to a consensus on the definitions of scientific quality, QA, the three QA dimensions (reporting, methodological limitation, and risk of bias and relevance), and scope of the QA tool. The number of QA items was refined to 14: all relevant to reporting, six to relevance, and 11 to methodological limitations and bias risk dimensions. The QA tool underscores distinct evaluations for each dimension. Conclusions We present the first version of a QA checklist designed to provide SR authors with a tool to appraise the quality of HSUV-eliciting studies comprehensively. The QA tool aims to (i) facilitate QA in SRs of HSUV elicitation studies, (ii) promote consistency in the appraisal process, and (iii) emphasize the importance of differentiating between reporting quality, methodology, and relevance.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareVol. 40(S1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.