↓ Skip to main content

Identifying priority technical and context-specific issues in improving the conduct, reporting and use of health economic evaluation in low- and middle-income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Identifying priority technical and context-specific issues in improving the conduct, reporting and use of health economic evaluation in low- and middle-income countries
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12961-018-0280-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alia Luz, Benjarin Santatiwongchai, Juntana Pattanaphesaj, Yot Teerawattananon

Abstract

The use of economic evaluation in healthcare policies and decision-making, which is limited in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), might be promoted through the improvement of the conduct and reporting of studies. Although the literature indicates that there are many issues affecting the conduct, reporting and use of this evidence, it is unclear which factors should be prioritised in finding solutions. This study aims to identify the top priority issues that impede the conduct, reporting and use of economic evaluation as well as potential solutions as an input for future research topics by the international Decision Support Initiative and other movements. A survey on issues regarding the conduct, reporting and use of economic evaluation as well as on potential solutions was conducted using an online questionnaire among researchers who have experience in conducting economic evaluations in LMICs. The respondents were requested to consider the list of issues provided, rank the most important ones and propose solutions. A scoring system was applied to derive the ranking of difficulties according to researchers' responses. Issues were grouped into technical and context-specific difficulties and analysed separately as a whole and by region. Researchers considered the lack of quality local clinical data, poor reporting and insufficient data to conduct the analysis from the chosen perspective as the most important technical difficulties. On the other hand, the non-integration of economic evaluations into decision-making was considered the most important context-specific issue. Finally, context-specific issues were considered the larger barrier to the use of economic evaluation. The technical issues that were considered most important were closely linked with the lack of an appropriately functioning information system as well as the capacity to generate essential contextual information (e.g. data and locally relevant utility values), especially when the methodology is complex. To overcome this, simpler approaches to collect data that yields information of comparable quality to more rigorous methods should be developed. The international community can play a major role through research on methodologies feasible for LMIC settings as well as in building research capacity in countries. Context-specific issues, which were recognised as larger barriers, should be improved in parallel.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Researcher 8 11%
Other 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 19 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 17%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 7%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 25 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 November 2019.
All research outputs
#2,299,865
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#332
of 1,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,716
of 437,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#19
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.