成本-效用分析在我国医药卫生领域应用现状的系统综述
x

请在关注微信后,向客服人员索取文件

篇名: 成本-效用分析在我国医药卫生领域应用现状的系统综述
TITLE:
摘要: 目的:评价近年来成本-效用分析(CUA)在我国医药卫生领域的应用现状。方法:检索中国知网、万方、维普3个中文数据库的相关文献,设定“题名”或“关键词”为“成本效用”或“成本-效用”;中国知网的学科领域限定为“医药卫生科技”,万方限定为“医药卫生”,维普限定为“临床医学”“中国医学”“基础医学”“预防医学卫生学”或“药学”;发表时间限定为2011年1月-2015年12月。从研究设计、研究角度、成本测算、效用指标及测量方法、CUA的评价指标、贴现和敏感度分析等方面对所纳入的文献进行综合评价。结果:共筛选出符合要求的文献31篇,包含前瞻性研究12篇、回顾性研究9篇、Markov模型研究9篇、混合研究1篇。13篇文献的第一作者单位为医疗机构;7篇文献明确提及了研究角度;绝大多数文献只测算了直接成本(19篇)和以质量调整生命年作为效用指标(27篇);28篇文献描述了具体的效用指标测量方法(直接测量法、间接测量法或文献法)。超过半数的文献(16篇)仅使用成本-效用比(CUR)进行CUA,7篇仅使用增量成本-效用比(ICUR),6篇结合了CUR与ICUR,5篇应用了ICUR的阈值。有11篇文献描述了贴现,且大多为Markov模型研究。有16篇文献进行了敏感度分析,其中11篇仅采用了单因素分析,分析得最多的影响因素是成本,其次是效用值和贴现率。结论:CUA在我国已有较为广泛的应用,但研究的质量和规范性有待改善。应加强借鉴国外的有益经验,提升研究的水平和质量,为临床合理用药、政府决策与医保支付提供真正有价值的参考意见。
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the application of cost-utility analysis in health area of China in recent year. METHODS: From CNKI, Wanfang and VIP database, setting “cost utility” or “cost-utility” as“title”or “keyword”, related literatures were retrieved during Jan. 2011-Dec. 2015, with subject field of“medical science and technology”in CNKI, “medical science”in Wanfang database,“clinical medicine” “Chinese medicine” “preclinical medicine” “preventive medicine hygiene” or “pharmacy” in VIP. The comprehensive evaluation involved research design, research perspective, cost measurement, utility index and measurement method, cost-utility analysis index, discount and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: A total of 31 literatures meeting inclusion criteria were selected, including 12 prospective studies, 9 retrospective studies, 9 Markov model studies, 1 mixed study. Thirteen literatures worked in medical institutions. Seven literatures explicitly mentioned research perspective; most literatures only measured direct cost (19 literatures) and adopted QALY as utility index (27 literatures). Twenty eight literatures described measurement method of utility index (direct measurement, indirect measurement or literature method) in detail. More than half (16 literatures) analyzed cost-utility by using cost-utility ratio (CUR); 7 literatures adopted incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and 6 literatures adopted both CUR and ICUR. Five literatures used the threshold of ICUR. Eleven literatures described discount, and the majority was Markov model study. Sensitivity analysis was conducted in 16 literatures, among which 11 literatures adopted single factor analysis. The most commonly involved influential factor was cost, followed by utility value and discount rate. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-utility analysis has been widely used in China, but the quality and normalization of studies have much room for improvement. Learning more experiences from international researches can help to promote the quality of domestic studies, guide the practice of clinical rational use of drugs and support the government decision-making process and medical insurance payment in the future.
期刊: 2017年第28卷第17期
作者: 周莉,叶露
AUTHORS: ZHOU Li,YE Lu
关键字: 成本-效用分析;医药卫生领域;现状;系统综述
KEYWORDS: Cost-utility analysis; Health area; Current situation; Systematic review
阅读数: 454 次
本月下载数: 18 次

* 注:未经本站明确许可,任何网站不得非法盗链资源下载连接及抄袭本站原创内容资源!在此感谢您的支持与合作!