• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of qualsafetyQuality and Safety in Health CareCurrent TOCInstructions for authors
Qual Saf Health Care. Oct 2003; 12(5): 366–371.
PMCID: PMC1743758

Value for money of changing healthcare services? Economic evaluation of quality improvement

Abstract



There are many instances of perceived or real inefficiencies in health service delivery. Both healthcare providers and policy makers need to know the impact and cost of applying strategies to change the behaviour of individuals or organisations. Quality improvement or implementation research is concerned with evaluating the methods of behavioural change. Addressing inefficiencies in healthcare services raises a series of issues, beginning with how inefficiency itself should be defined. The basic concepts of cost analysis and economic evaluations are explained and a model for working through the economic issues of quality improvement is discussed. This model combines the costs and benefits of corrected inefficiency with the costs and degree of behavioural change achieved by a quality improvement method in the policy maker's locality. It shows why it may not always be cost effective for policy makers to address suboptimal behaviour. Both the interpretation of quality improvement research findings and their local application need careful consideration. The limited availability of applicable quality improvement research may make it difficult to provide robust advice on the value for money of many behavioural quality improvement strategies.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (191K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Cleemput Irina, Kesteloot Katrien. Economic implications of non-compliance in health care. Lancet. 2002 Jun 22;359(9324):2129–2130. [PubMed]
  • Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992 Jul 8;268(2):240–248. [PubMed]
  • Freemantle N, Mason J. The importance of achieving additional drug benefits at a reasonable cost. A review of the fluoxetine years. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 Apr;17(4):319–324. [PubMed]
  • Kaner EF, Lock CA, McAvoy BR, Heather N, Gilvarry E. A RCT of three training and support strategies to encourage implementation of screening and brief alcohol intervention by general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract. 1999 Sep;49(446):699–703. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Mason J, Freemantle N, Nazareth I, Eccles M, Haines A, Drummond M. When is it cost-effective to change the behavior of health professionals? JAMA. 2001 Dec 19;286(23):2988–2992. [PubMed]
  • Winkens RA, Ament AJ, Pop P, Reniers PH, Grol RP, Knottnerus JA. Routine individual feedback on requests for diagnostic tests: an economic evaluation. Med Decis Making. 1996 Oct-Dec;16(4):309–314. [PubMed]
  • Mauskopf JA, Paul JE, Grant DM, Stergachis A. The role of cost-consequence analysis in healthcare decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998 Mar;13(3):277–288. [PubMed]
  • McIntosh E, Donaldson C, Ryan M. Recent advances in the methods of cost-benefit analysis in healthcare. Matching the art to the science. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999 Apr;15(4):357–367. [PubMed]
  • Robinson MB, Thompson E, Black NA. Why is evaluation of the cost effectiveness of audit so difficult? The example of thrombolysis for suspected acute myocardial infarction. Qual Health Care. 1998 Mar;7(1):19–26. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Schermer Tjard R, Thoonen Bart P, van den Boom Guido, Akkermans Reinier P, Grol Richard P, Folgering Hans T, van Weel Chris, van Schayck Constant P. Randomized controlled economic evaluation of asthma self-management in primary health care. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002 Oct 15;166(8):1062–1072. [PubMed]
  • Freemantle N, Eccles M, Wood J, Mason J, Nazareth I, Duggan C, Young P, Haines A, Drummond M, Russell I, et al. A randomized trial of Evidence-based OutReach (EBOR): rationale and design. Control Clin Trials. 1999 Oct;20(5):479–492. [PubMed]
  • Freemantle Nick, Nazareth Irwin, Eccles Martin, Wood John, Haines Andrew. A randomised controlled trial of the effect of educational outreach by community pharmacists on prescribing in UK general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Apr;52(477):290–295. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Sculpher M. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the utilization of evidence-based guidelines. Fam Pract. 2000 Feb;17 (Suppl 1):S26–S31. [PubMed]
  • Durieux P, Nizard R, Ravaud P, Mounier N, Lepage E. A clinical decision support system for prevention of venous thromboembolism: effect on physician behavior. JAMA. 2000 Jun 7;283(21):2816–2821. [PubMed]
  • Watson M, Gunnell D, Peters T, Brookes S, Sharp D. Guidelines and educational outreach visits from community pharmacists to improve prescribing in general practice: a randomised controlled trial. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001 Oct;6(4):207–213. [PubMed]

Articles from Quality & Safety in Health Care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...