Published Dec 2009
Citation
McGhan WF, Al M, Doshi JA, Kamae I, Marx SE, Rindress D. The ISPOR good practices for quality improvement of cost-effectiveness research task force report. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1086-1099.
Abstract
Objectives: The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes
Research (ISPOR) Health Science Policy Council recommended and
the ISPOR Board of Directors approved the formation of a Task Force to
critically examine the major issues related to Quality Improvement in
Cost-effectiveness Research (QICER). The Council’s primary recommendation
for this Task Force was that it should report on the quality of
cost-effectiveness research and make recommendations to facilitate the
improvement of pharmacoeconomics and health outcomes research and its
use in stimulating better health care and policy. Task force members were
knowledgeable and experienced in medicine, pharmacy, biostatistics,
health policy and health-care decision-making, biomedical knowledge
transfer, health economics, and pharmacoeconomics. They were drawn
from industry, academia, consulting organizations, and advisors to governments
and came from Japan, the Netherlands, Canada and the United
States.
Methods: Face-to-face meetings of the Task Force were held at ISPOR
North American and European meetings and teleconferences occurred
every few months. Literature reviews and surveys were conducted and the
first preliminary findings presented at an open forum at the May 2008
ISPOR meeting in Toronto. The final draft report was circulated to the
expert reviewer group and then to the entire membership for comment.
The draft report was posted on the ISPOR Web site in April 2009. All
formal comments received were posted to the association Web site and
presented for discussion at the Task Force forum during the ISPOR 14th
Annual International Meeting in May 2009. Comments and feedback
from the forums, reviewers and membership were considered in the final
report. Once Task Force consensus was reached, the article was submitted
to Value in Health.
Conclusions: The QICER Task Force recommends that ISPOR implement
the following:
• With respect to CER guidelines, that ISPOR promote harmonization
of guidelines, allowing for differences in application, regional needs
and politics; evaluate available instruments or promote development
of a new one that will allow standardized quantification of the
impact of CER guidelines on the quality of CER studies; report
periodically on those countries or regions that have developed
guidelines; periodically evaluate the quality of published studies
(those journals with CER guidances) or those submitted to decisionmaking
bodies (as public transparency increases).
• With respect to methodologies, that ISPOR promote publication of
methodological guidelines in more applied journals in more easily
understandable format to transfer knowledge to researchers who
need to apply more rigorous methods; promote full availability of
models in electronic format to combat space restrictions in hardcopy
publications; promote consistency of methodological review for all
CER studies; promote adoption of explicit best practices guidelines
among regulatory and reimbursement authorities; periodically
update all ISPOR Task Force reports; periodically review use of
ISPOR Task Force guidelines; periodically report on statistical and
methodological challenges in HE; evaluate periodically whether
ISPOR’s methodological guidelines lead to improved quality; and
support training and knowledge transfer of rigorous CER methodologies
to researchers and health care decision-makers.
• With respect to publications, that ISPOR develop standard CER
guidances to which journals will be able to refer their authors and
their reviewers; lobby to establish these guidances within the International
Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Requirements
to which most journals refer in their Author Instructions;
provide support in terms of additional reviewer expertise to those
journals lacking appropriate reviewers; periodically report on journals
publishing CER research; periodically report on the quality of
CER publications; and support training and knowledge transfer of
the use of these guidelines to researchers and reviewers.
• With respect to evidence-based health-care decision-making, that
ISPOR recognize at its annual meetings those countries/agencies/
private companies/researchers using CER well, and those practitioners
and researchers supporting good patient use of CER in
decision-making; and promote public presentation of case studies of
applied use of CER concepts or guidelines.
Keywords: cost-effectiveness, guidelines, health economics, quality
improvement.
Full Content
Log In to View ReportRelated Content
Questions?
For any questions about this report please contact us.