Premium
Using economics alongside clinical trials: Why we cannot choose the evaluation technique in advance
Author(s) -
Donaldson Cam,
Hundley Vanora,
McIntosh Emma
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
health economics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.55
H-Index - 109
eISSN - 1099-1050
pISSN - 1057-9230
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199605)5:3<267::aid-hec209>3.0.co;2-x
Subject(s) - economic evaluation , clinical trial , cost–benefit analysis , economic analysis , cost–utility analysis , health economics , management science , computer science , cost effectiveness analysis , actuarial science , cost effectiveness , risk analysis (engineering) , operations research , economics , medicine , health care , microeconomics , economic growth , engineering , political science , pathology , agricultural economics , law
When drafting protocols for the use of economic evaluation alongside clinical trials, it is common to have to specify which type of economic evaluation is going to be carried out. Will it be a cost‐benefit analysis (CBA), cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA) or a cost‐utility analysis (CUA)? It is our contention that prior specification of the appropriate economic technique is not possible, in the majority of cases, until data on effectiveness and cost are actually available. In this letter, we aim to demonstrate the thinking behind our contention and to illustrate this with two case studies; one of a recent randomised trial, the other of a trial currently in progress.