iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39558344/
Health technology assessment to support health benefits package design: a systematic review of economic evaluation evidence in Zambia - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Nov 18;24(1):1426.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11914-z.

Health technology assessment to support health benefits package design: a systematic review of economic evaluation evidence in Zambia

Warren Mukelabai Simangolwa  1   2 , Kaymarlin Govender  3   4 , Josue Mbonigaba  4
Affiliations
Review

Health technology assessment to support health benefits package design: a systematic review of economic evaluation evidence in Zambia

Warren Mukelabai Simangolwa et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Health technology assessment uses explicit economic evaluation evidence to support health benefits package design. However, the limited availability of technical expertise, data, and methods has restricted the production of economic evaluation evidence in low- and middle-income countries. Zambia has initiated a roadmap to support its policy of reviewing and implementing its national benefits package. This study characterises economic evaluation evidence to support this process's evidence mapping, synthesis, and appraisal stages.

Methods: This systematic review applies deductive analysis and the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses. Four databases were searched to identify studies from 1993 that coincided with Zambia's health benefits package reform.

Results: A total of 61 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were first authored by nonlocal authors, and the number of local-based authors in each study was low. Almost all funding for economic evaluation research was not local, and only a few studies sought local ethical clearance to conduct research. Infectious diseases were the highest disease control priority for the studies, with HIV research having the highest output. Most of the studies were cost-effectiveness studies that utilised trial-based data and a combination of program, published, and unpublished data for analysis. The studies generally utilised direct cost and applied the ingredient-based costing approach. Natural units were predominantly used for outcomes alongside DALYs. Most studies reported using a 3% discount rate for both costs and outcomes, with only a few reporting methods for sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion: Economic evaluation evidence in Zambia has increased, revealing limited local research leadership, methodological inconsistencies, and a focus on infectious diseases. These findings are crucial for revising Zambia's benefits package and may guide researchers and decision-makers in improving the transparency and quality of future research.

Keywords: Cost; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Economic evaluation; Health benefits package; Health technology assessment; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Ethics clearance was obtained from ERES Converge in Zambia (Apr-2022–007) and the Humanities and Social Science Research Ethics Committee at the University of KwaZulu Natal in South Africa (REC00004520/2022). Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing Interest The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study selection process flowchart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Economic evaluation studies publication timeline in Zambia (1993–2023)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. World Health Assembly. WHA67.23: Health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage. 2014. Available from: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA67/A67_R23-en.pdf.
    1. Kim T, Sharma M, Teerawattananon Y, et al. Addressing Challenges in Health Technology Assessment Institutionalization for Furtherance of Universal Health Coverage Through South-South Knowledge Exchange: Lessons From Bhutan, Kenya, Thailand, and Zambia. Value in Health Regional Issues. 2021;24:187–92 ([cited 2022 Mar 20]). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Teerawattananon Y, Painter C, Dabak S, et al. Avoiding health technology assessment: a global survey of reasons for not using health technology assessment in decision making. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2021;19(1):62 ([cited 2022 Mar 20]). - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization. Health Technology Assessment and Health Benefit Package Survey 2020/2021. 2021. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/health-financing-and-economics/economic-analys....
    1. Simangolwa WM, Mbonigaba J, Govender K. Health technology assessment for sexual reproductive health and rights benefits package design in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review of evidence-informed deliberative processes. Mockridge J editor PLoS ONE. 2024;19(6):e0306042 ([cited 2024 Aug 6]). - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources