Title |
Health Economic Evaluations of Cancer in Brazil: A Systematic Review
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Public Health, July 2018
|
DOI | 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00205 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Alessandro G. Campolina, Tania Y. Yuba, Tassia C. Decimoni, Roseli Leandro, Maria del Pilar Estevez Diz, Hillegonda M. D. Novaes, Patrícia C. de Soárez |
Abstract |
Background: A large number of health economic evaluation (HEE) studies have been published in developed countries. However, Brazilian HEE literature in oncology has not been studied. To investigate whether the scientific literature has provided a set of HEE in oncology capable of supporting decision making in the Brazilian context. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify and characterize studies in this field. We searched multiple databases selecting partial and full HEE studies in oncology (1998-2013). Results: Fifty-five articles were reviewed, of these, 33 (60%) were full health economic evaluations. Type of cancers most frequently studied were: breast (38.2%), cervical (14.6%), lung (10.9%) and colorectal (9.1%). Procedures (47.3%) were the technologies most frequently evaluated. In terms of the intended purposes of the technologies, most (63.6%) were treatments. The majority of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) reported have been below the cost-effectiveness threshold suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO). Conclusions: There has been an increase in the number of HEEs related to cancer in Brazil. These studies may support decision-making processes regarding the coverage of and reimbursement of healthcare technologies for cancer treatment in Brazil. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 8 | 18% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 16% |
Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
Researcher | 2 | 5% |
Other | 5 | 11% |
Unknown | 16 | 36% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 16% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 14% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
Other | 8 | 18% |
Unknown | 17 | 39% |