Budget-impact analyses: A critical review of published studies

Ewa Orlewska, L. Gulácsi

Research output: Article

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article reviews budget-impact analyses (BIAs) published to date in peer-reviewed bio-medical journals with reference to current best practice, and discusses where future research needs to be directed. Published BIAs were identified by conducting a computerized search on PubMed using the search term 'budget impact analysis'. The years covered by the search included January 2000 through November 2008. Only studies (i) named by authors as BIAs and (ii) predicting financial consequences of adoption and diffusion of a new health intervention(s) within a specific healthcare setting were included. Relevant studies were evaluated according to the checklist that focuses on issues unique to BIA, highlighting areas of agreement or dissent between published studies and methodological guidelines. A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority published in 2007-8. Of these, 41% were from the US, 54% were prepared for pharmaceuticals and 65% had BIA as their main aim. The published BIAs were heterogeneous in respect of methods for deriving budget-impact estimates, time horizon and population. There is fairly good agreement between published studies and methodological guidelines within the scope of perspective, comparator, cost included and data sources. Specific issues that need to be addressed and/or improved are reporting format, sensitivity analysis and discounting. The results indicate that, recently, BIAs have appeared more frequently in peer-reviewed journals, providing stimulus to development, validation and dissemination of methods. Many published studies fail to reach the desired quality, but this situation should change with good research practice principles that will help codify and clarify important issues and promote standardization and transparency. Future research needs to be directed to quality assurance of published BIAs and investment in data collection for parameters specific to BIAs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)807-827
Number of pages21
JournalPharmacoEconomics
Volume27
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Budgets
Guidelines
Dissent and Disputes
Information Storage and Retrieval
Checklist
Practice Guidelines
PubMed
Delivery of Health Care
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Budget-impact analyses : A critical review of published studies. / Orlewska, Ewa; Gulácsi, L.

In: PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 27, No. 10, 2009, p. 807-827.

Research output: Article

@article{1acd4a110b8b4b2694570f82fb4aadf9,
title = "Budget-impact analyses: A critical review of published studies",
abstract = "This article reviews budget-impact analyses (BIAs) published to date in peer-reviewed bio-medical journals with reference to current best practice, and discusses where future research needs to be directed. Published BIAs were identified by conducting a computerized search on PubMed using the search term 'budget impact analysis'. The years covered by the search included January 2000 through November 2008. Only studies (i) named by authors as BIAs and (ii) predicting financial consequences of adoption and diffusion of a new health intervention(s) within a specific healthcare setting were included. Relevant studies were evaluated according to the checklist that focuses on issues unique to BIA, highlighting areas of agreement or dissent between published studies and methodological guidelines. A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority published in 2007-8. Of these, 41{\%} were from the US, 54{\%} were prepared for pharmaceuticals and 65{\%} had BIA as their main aim. The published BIAs were heterogeneous in respect of methods for deriving budget-impact estimates, time horizon and population. There is fairly good agreement between published studies and methodological guidelines within the scope of perspective, comparator, cost included and data sources. Specific issues that need to be addressed and/or improved are reporting format, sensitivity analysis and discounting. The results indicate that, recently, BIAs have appeared more frequently in peer-reviewed journals, providing stimulus to development, validation and dissemination of methods. Many published studies fail to reach the desired quality, but this situation should change with good research practice principles that will help codify and clarify important issues and promote standardization and transparency. Future research needs to be directed to quality assurance of published BIAs and investment in data collection for parameters specific to BIAs.",
author = "Ewa Orlewska and L. Gul{\'a}csi",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.2165/11313770-000000000-00000",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "807--827",
journal = "PharmacoEconomics",
issn = "1170-7690",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Budget-impact analyses

T2 - A critical review of published studies

AU - Orlewska, Ewa

AU - Gulácsi, L.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - This article reviews budget-impact analyses (BIAs) published to date in peer-reviewed bio-medical journals with reference to current best practice, and discusses where future research needs to be directed. Published BIAs were identified by conducting a computerized search on PubMed using the search term 'budget impact analysis'. The years covered by the search included January 2000 through November 2008. Only studies (i) named by authors as BIAs and (ii) predicting financial consequences of adoption and diffusion of a new health intervention(s) within a specific healthcare setting were included. Relevant studies were evaluated according to the checklist that focuses on issues unique to BIA, highlighting areas of agreement or dissent between published studies and methodological guidelines. A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority published in 2007-8. Of these, 41% were from the US, 54% were prepared for pharmaceuticals and 65% had BIA as their main aim. The published BIAs were heterogeneous in respect of methods for deriving budget-impact estimates, time horizon and population. There is fairly good agreement between published studies and methodological guidelines within the scope of perspective, comparator, cost included and data sources. Specific issues that need to be addressed and/or improved are reporting format, sensitivity analysis and discounting. The results indicate that, recently, BIAs have appeared more frequently in peer-reviewed journals, providing stimulus to development, validation and dissemination of methods. Many published studies fail to reach the desired quality, but this situation should change with good research practice principles that will help codify and clarify important issues and promote standardization and transparency. Future research needs to be directed to quality assurance of published BIAs and investment in data collection for parameters specific to BIAs.

AB - This article reviews budget-impact analyses (BIAs) published to date in peer-reviewed bio-medical journals with reference to current best practice, and discusses where future research needs to be directed. Published BIAs were identified by conducting a computerized search on PubMed using the search term 'budget impact analysis'. The years covered by the search included January 2000 through November 2008. Only studies (i) named by authors as BIAs and (ii) predicting financial consequences of adoption and diffusion of a new health intervention(s) within a specific healthcare setting were included. Relevant studies were evaluated according to the checklist that focuses on issues unique to BIA, highlighting areas of agreement or dissent between published studies and methodological guidelines. A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority published in 2007-8. Of these, 41% were from the US, 54% were prepared for pharmaceuticals and 65% had BIA as their main aim. The published BIAs were heterogeneous in respect of methods for deriving budget-impact estimates, time horizon and population. There is fairly good agreement between published studies and methodological guidelines within the scope of perspective, comparator, cost included and data sources. Specific issues that need to be addressed and/or improved are reporting format, sensitivity analysis and discounting. The results indicate that, recently, BIAs have appeared more frequently in peer-reviewed journals, providing stimulus to development, validation and dissemination of methods. Many published studies fail to reach the desired quality, but this situation should change with good research practice principles that will help codify and clarify important issues and promote standardization and transparency. Future research needs to be directed to quality assurance of published BIAs and investment in data collection for parameters specific to BIAs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349896043&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70349896043&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2165/11313770-000000000-00000

DO - 10.2165/11313770-000000000-00000

M3 - Article

C2 - 19803537

AN - SCOPUS:70349896043

VL - 27

SP - 807

EP - 827

JO - PharmacoEconomics

JF - PharmacoEconomics

SN - 1170-7690

IS - 10

ER -