<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <title>BURA Collection: HERG's strategic focus is on the economic evaluation of a broad range of clinical and health service technologies and its dual aim is to provide applied, policy-relevant research whilst developing and refining methods to increase the rigour and relevance of such studies.</title>
  <link rel="alternate" href="http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/156" />
  <subtitle>HERG's strategic focus is on the economic evaluation of a broad range of clinical and health service technologies and its dual aim is to provide applied, policy-relevant research whilst developing and refining methods to increase the rigour and relevance of such studies.</subtitle>
  <id>http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/156</id>
  <updated>2013-05-25T20:23:45Z</updated>
  <dc:date>2013-05-25T20:23:45Z</dc:date>
  <entry>
    <title>Conducting retrospective impact analysis to inform a medical research charity’s funding strategies: The case of Asthma UK</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/7446" />
    <author>
      <name>Hanney, S</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Watt, A</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Jones, TH</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Metcalf, L</name>
    </author>
    <id>http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/7446</id>
    <updated>2013-05-24T13:28:15Z</updated>
    <published>2013-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: Conducting retrospective impact analysis to inform a medical research charity’s funding strategies: The case of Asthma UK
Authors: Hanney, S; Watt, A; Jones, TH; Metcalf, L
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Debate is intensifying about how to assess the full range of impacts from medical research. Complexity increases when assessing the diverse funding streams of funders such as Asthma UK, a charitable patient organisation supporting medical research to benefit people with asthma. This paper aims to describe the various impacts identified from a range of Asthma UK research, and explore how Asthma UK utilised the characteristics of successful funding approaches to inform future research strategies. METHODS: We adapted the Payback Framework, using it both in a survey and to help structure interviews, documentary analysis, and case studies. We sent surveys to 153 lead researchers of projects, plus 10 past research fellows, and also conducted 14 detailed case studies. These covered nine projects and two fellowships, in addition to the innovative case studies on the professorial chairs (funded since 1988) and the MRC-Asthma UK Centre in Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma (the ‘Centre’) which together facilitated a comprehensive analysis of the whole funding portfolio. We organised each case study to capture whatever academic and wider societal impacts (or payback) might have arisen given the diverse timescales, size of funding involved, and extent to which Asthma UK funding contributed to the impacts. RESULTS: Projects recorded an average of four peer-reviewed journal articles. Together the chairs reported over 500 papers. All streams of funding attracted follow-on funding. Each of the various categories of societal impacts arose from only a minority of individual projects and fellowships. Some of the research portfolio is influencing asthma-related clinical guidelines, and some contributing to product development. The latter includes potentially major breakthroughs in asthma therapies (in immunotherapy, and new inhaled drugs) trialled by university spin-out companies. Such research-informed guidelines and medicines can, in turn, contribute to health improvements. The role of the chairs and the pioneering collaborative Centre is shown as being particularly important. CONCLUSIONS: We systematically demonstrate that all types of Asthma UK’s research funding assessed are making impacts at different levels, but the main societal impacts from projects and fellowships come from a minority of those funded. Asthma UK used the study’s findings, especially in relation to the Centre, to inform research funding strategies to promote the achievement of impact.
Description: © 2013 Hanney et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</summary>
    <dc:date>2013-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>What values do the public want their health care systems to use in evaluating technologies?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/7231" />
    <author>
      <name>Buxton, MJ</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Chambers, JD</name>
    </author>
    <id>http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/7231</id>
    <updated>2013-02-27T11:07:17Z</updated>
    <published>2011-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: What values do the public want their health care systems to use in evaluating technologies?
Authors: Buxton, MJ; Chambers, JD
Description: Copyright @ 2011 The Authors. This article can be accessed from the links below.</summary>
    <dc:date>2011-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Applying economic evaluation to public health interventions: The case of interventions to promote physical activity</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/7219" />
    <author>
      <name>Trueman, P</name>
    </author>
    <author>
      <name>Anokye, NK</name>
    </author>
    <id>http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/7219</id>
    <updated>2013-02-11T10:16:14Z</updated>
    <published>2012-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: Applying economic evaluation to public health interventions: The case of interventions to promote physical activity
Authors: Trueman, P; Anokye, NK
Abstract: BACKGROUND: This paper explores the application of alternative approaches to economic evaluation of public health interventions, using a worked example of exercise referral schemes (ERSs). METHODS: Cost-utility (CUA) and cost-consequence analyses (CCA) were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of ERSs. For the CUA, evidence was synthesized using a decision analytic model that adopts a lifetime horizon and NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. Outcomes were expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). CCA was conducted from a partial-societal perspective, including health and non-healthcare costs and benefits. Outcomes were reported in natural units, such as cases of strokes or CHD avoided. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, the incremental cost per QALY of ERS is £20 876. Based on a cohort of 100 000 individuals, CCA estimates cost of ERS at £22 million to the healthcare provider and £12 million to participants. The benefits of ERS include additional 3900 people becoming physically active, 51 cases of CHD avoided, 16 cases of stroke avoided, 86 cases of diabetes avoided and a gain of ∼800 QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: CCA might provide greater transparency than CUA in reporting the outcomes of public health interventions and have greater resonance with stakeholders involved in commissioning these interventions.
Description: Copyright @ 2012 The Authors. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</summary>
    <dc:date>2012-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Mind the Gap! - Geographic transferability of economic evaluation in health</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/7170" />
    <author>
      <name>Boehler, Christian Ernst Heinrich</name>
    </author>
    <id>http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/7170</id>
    <updated>2013-01-25T12:32:28Z</updated>
    <published>2013-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: Mind the Gap! - Geographic transferability of economic evaluation in health
Authors: Boehler, Christian Ernst Heinrich
Abstract: Background: Transferring cost-effectiveness information between geographic domains offers the potential for more efficient use of analytical resources. However, it is difficult for decision-makers to know when they can rely on costeffectiveness evidence produced for another context. Objectives: This thesis explores the transferability of economic evaluation results produced for one&#xD;
geographic area to another location of interest, and develops an approach to identify factors to predict when this is appropriate. Methods: Multilevel statistical&#xD;
models were developed for the integration of published international costeffectiveness&#xD;
data to assess the impact of contextual effects on country-level; whilst controlling for baseline characteristics within, and across, a set of economic evaluation studies. Explanatory variables were derived from a list of factors suggested in the literature as possible constraints on the transferability of costeffectiveness evidence. The approach was illustrated using published estimates of the cost-effectiveness of statins for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease from 67 studies and related to 23 geographic domains, together with covariates on data, study and country-level. Results: The proportion of variation at the country-level observed depends on the appropriate multilevel model structure and never exceeds 15% for incremental effects and 21% for&#xD;
incremental cost. Key sources of variability are patient and disease characteristics,&#xD;
intervention cost and a number of methodological characteristics defined on the&#xD;
data-level. There were fewer significant covariates on the study and country-levels.&#xD;
Conclusions: Analysis suggests that variability in cost-effectiveness data is primarily due to differences between studies, not countries. Further, comparing different models suggests that data from multinational studies severely underestimates&#xD;
country-level variability. Additional research is needed to test the robustness of&#xD;
these conclusions on other sets of cost-effectiveness data, to further explore the&#xD;
appropriate set of covariates, and to foster the development of multilevel statistical&#xD;
modelling for economic evaluation data in health.
Description: This thesis was submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and awarded by Brunel University.</summary>
    <dc:date>2013-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
</feed>

