Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205633
Title: Adherence to the iDSI reference case among published cost-per-DALY averted studies
Authors: Emerson, J.
Panzer, A.
Cohen, J.T.
Chalkidou, K.
Teerawattananon, Y. 
Sculpher, M.
Wilkinson, T.
Walker, D.
Neumann, P.J.
Kim, D.D.
Issue Date: 2019
Publisher: Public Library of Science
Citation: Emerson, J., Panzer, A., Cohen, J.T., Chalkidou, K., Teerawattananon, Y., Sculpher, M., Wilkinson, T., Walker, D., Neumann, P.J., Kim, D.D. (2019). Adherence to the iDSI reference case among published cost-per-DALY averted studies. PLoS ONE 14 (5) : e0205633. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205633
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Abstract: Background The iDSI reference case, originally published in 2014, aims to improve the quality and comparability of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA). This study assesses whether the development of the guideline is associated with an improvement in methodological and reporting practices for CEAs using disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Methods We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center Global Health CEA Registry to identify cost-per-DALY averted studies published from 2011 to 2017. Among each of 11 principles in the iDSI reference case, we translated all methodological specifications and reporting standards into a series of binary questions (satisfied or not satisfied) and awarded articles one point for each item satisfied. We then calculated methodological and reporting adherence scores separately as a percentage of total possible points, measured as normalized adherence score (0% = no adherence; 100% = full adherence). Using the year 2014 as the dissemination period, we conducted a pre-post analysis. We also conducted sensitivity analyses using: 1) optional criteria in scoring, 2) alternate dissemination period (2014–2015), and 3) alternative comparator classification. Results Articles averaged 60% adherence to methodological specifications and 74% adherence to reporting standards. While methodological adherence scores did not significantly improve (59% pre-2014 vs. 60% post-2014, p = 0.53), reporting adherence scores increased slightly over time (72% pre-2014 vs. 75% post-2014, p<0.01). Overall, reporting adherence scores exceeded methodological adherence scores (74% vs. 60%, p<0.001). Articles seldom addressed budget impact (9% reporting, 10% methodological) or equity (7% reporting, 7% methodological). Conclusions The iDSI reference case has substantial potential to serve as a useful resource for researchers and policy-makers in global health settings, but greater effort to promote adherence and awareness is needed to achieve its potential. © 2019 Emerson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Source Title: PLoS ONE
URI: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/213689
ISSN: 19326203
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205633
Rights: Attribution 4.0 International
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications
Elements

Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
10_1371_journal_pone_0205633.pdf796.2 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

21
checked on Jan 26, 2023

Page view(s)

77
checked on Jan 26, 2023

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons