Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39434149›Full record

Observational studyTrials2024

Uptake of health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials in Australia: an observational study.

Alayna Carrandi, Cynthia Wells, Rachael L Morton, Richard Norman, Helen Skouteris, Amy Grove, Alisa M Higgins

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Alayna CarrandiAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Cynthia WellsAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Rachael L MortonClinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Richard NormanFaculty of Health Sciences, School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Helen SkouterisHealth and Social Care Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Amy GroveWarwick Medical School, Warwick University, Coventry, UK.
Alisa M HigginsAustralian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. lisa.higgins@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8295-7559

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAustralia's clinical trials sector is highly productive with continued sector investment needed to enhance research impact. Generating economic evidence alongside trials has the potential to facilitate the implementation of trial results into practice. Ascertaining the use of health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials can assist in determining whether clinical trials fully realize and operationalize their potential to change policy and practice. The aims of this study were to ascertain the uptake of health economic evaluations alongside Australian-led clinical trials and explore associations between uptake and trial characteristics.

methodsThis observational study comprised a descriptive analysis of clinical trials registries, a cross-sectional survey of Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA) networks, and a subgroup analysis of completed acute care trials. Descriptive analyses of trial registrations were conducted, with logistic regressions used to identify predictors of proposing and subsequently publishing a health economic evaluation alongside acute care trials.

resultsFew randomized Australian-led clinical trials (11% of 9251) and ACTA network trials (43% of 227) proposed a health economic evaluation. In the subgroup analysis, 22% of the 324 acute care trials and 53% of the 38 ACTA network acute care trials proposed a health economic evaluation. Acute care trials funded by government bodies were significantly more likely to propose and publish a health economic evaluation than those funded by hospitals, universities, and other funders, after adjusting for phase, registration year, primary sponsor type, and comparator.

conclusionsCurrent uptake of health economic evaluations alongside Australian-led clinical trials is low, with uptake higher among the subset of ACTA network trials. This is despite economic evidence playing an increasingly prominent role in health system management, as well as rising health expenditure, limited budgets, and competing demands. There is significant opportunity to embed health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials, particularly phase 3 trials, to increase research outputs and optimize research translation. Investing in clinical trial networks that support funding for a health economist or a health economic evaluation may be an effective strategy to increase the uptake of health economic evaluations alongside trials.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesHealth Care CostsHumansRegistriesResearch DesignResearch Support as TopicCost-benefit analysisCost-effectiveness analysisEvidence-based medicineRandomized controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID39434149
PMCPMC11494774

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.