Subscribe to RSS

DOI: 10.1055/a-2569-9765
Methoden zur gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluation komplexer Interventionen in der Gesundheitsversorgung: aktuelle Praxis, Herausforderungen und Weiterentwicklungsbedarf
Article in several languages: English | deutschAuthors
Zusammenfassung
Gesundheitsökonomische Methoden können die Entwicklung und Evaluation von neuen Versorgungskonzepten unterstützen, indem sie Daten zu eingesetzten Ressourcen genieren und diese ins Verhältnis zu einem definierten Nutzen setzen. Die meist angewendete Standardmethodik der gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluation wird dabei jedoch dem hohen Komplexitätsgrad von Interventionen in der Gesundheitsversorgung nicht gerecht. Dadurch fehlen entscheidungsrelevante Informationen, beispielsweise zu Präferenzen der Zielgruppe, zu Spillover-Effekten auf Seiten pflegender Angehöriger, oder zu Implementierungskosten und der Rolle unterschiedlicher Kontexte bei der Überführung von Interventionen in die Regelversorgung. Das Standard setzende Rahmenwerk des britischen Medical Research Councils (MRC) für komplexe Interventionen betont daher die Notwendigkeit, gesundheitsökonomische Aspekte stärker in alle Phasen der Entwicklung und Evaluation komplexer versorgungsbezogener Interventionen einzubeziehen. Um dies zu ermöglichen müssen die Empfehlungen des MRC zur Erweiterung und Anpassung der Standardmethodik der gesundheitsökonomischen Evaluation konkretisiert und ergänzt werden. Aufbauend auf bereits etablierten methodischen Verfahren sollen hierzu Empfehlungen entwickelt sowie Vorschläge für erforderliche weitere Forschung formuliert werden.
Publication History
Received: 18 October 2024
Accepted after revision: 30 December 2024
Accepted Manuscript online:
31 March 2025
Article published online:
09 October 2025
© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A. et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 2000; 321: 694-696
- 2 Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J. et al. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ 2007; 334: 455-459
- 3 Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S. et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008; 337: a1655
- 4 Datta J, Petticrew M. Challenges to evaluating complex interventions: a content analysis of published papers. BMC Public Health. 2013. 13. 568 AF, Evers SM, Alexeeva D et al. A review of economic evaluations of behavior change interventions: setting an agenda for research methods and practice. J Public Health (Oxf) 2014; 36: 336–344 10.1093/pubmed/fdt080
- 5 Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA. et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2021; 374: n2061
- 6 Schrappe M, Pfaff H. Versorgungsforschung vor neuen Herausforderungen: Konsequenzen für Definition und Konzept. Gesundheitswesen 2016; 78: 689-694
- 7 Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K. et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4. Aufl. Oxford: Oxford university press; 2015
- 8 Yagudina RI, Kulikov AU, Serpik VG. et al. Concept of Combining Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Budget Impact Analysis in Health Care Decision-Making. Value Health Reg Issues 2017; 13: 61-66
- 9 Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A. et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 2016; 316: 1093-1103
- 10 Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 2003; 290: 1624-1632
- 11 Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic evaluation for devices and drugs – same or different?. Value Health 2009; 12: 402-404
- 12 Meacock RL. Economic evaluation of changes to the organisation and delivery of health services: methods and applications [Dissertation]. Manchester: The University of Manchester; 2017
- 13 Weatherly H, Drummond M, Claxton K. et al. Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: Key challenges and recommendations. Health Policy 2009; 93: 85-92
- 14 Alayli-Goebbels AF, Evers SM, Alexeeva D. et al. A review of economic evaluations of behavior change interventions: setting an agenda for research methods and practice. J Public Health (Oxf) 2014; 36: 336-344
- 15 Rogowski W, Payne K, Schnell-Inderst P. et al. Concepts of 'personalization' in personalized medicine: implications for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2015; 33: 49-59
- 16 Anderson R, Hardwick R. Realism and resources: Towards more explanatory economic evaluation. Evaluation (Lond) 2016; 22: 323-341
- 17 Tsiachristas A, Stein KV, Evers S. et al. Performing Economic Evaluation of Integrated Care: Highway to Hell or Stairway to Heaven?. Int J of Integr Care 2016; 16: 3
- 18 Bojke L, Schmitt L, Lomas J. et al Economic Evaluation of Environmental Interventions: Reflections on Methodological Challenges and Developments. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15 S 1-9
- 19 Meacock R. Methods for the economic evaluation of changes to the organisation and delivery of health services: principal challenges and recommendations. Health Econ Policy Law 2019; 14: 119-134
- 20 Madan J, Bruce Kumar M, Taegtmeyer M, Barasa E. et al. Seep-CI: A Structured Economic Evaluation Process for Complex Health System Interventions?. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 6780-6891
- 21 Gomes M, Murray E, Raftery J. Economic Evaluation of Digital Health Interventions: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice. Pharmacoeconomics 2022; 40: 367-378
