Skip to main content

Table 2 Economic findings of included reviews

From: An overview of systematic reviews of economic evaluations of pharmacy-based public health interventions: addressing methodological challenges

First author (Year SR)Types of economic evaluation in CP studiesResource use and cost categories in CP studiesCost year/discount rates in CP studiesData sources in CP studiesPerspectives in CP studiesKey findings in CP studies
Schumock GY (1996) [44]No full economic evaluationNRNATrial-basedNANo B/C for CP studies. Cost avoided per prescription and avoided care costs per intervention
Schumock GY (2003) [45]No full economic, 1 CCA (1)NR (3), program, drug and healthcare costs (1), fees but lumped with drug costs savings (1), drug and advertising (1)Not discounted (1)Trial-basedNANo B/C for CP studies. Lower mean total charges; lower medical and Rx costs; lower prescription costs; cost savings for interventions; costs exceed benefits (but error reported); costs per vaccination
Perez A (2008) [46]CMA (4), CBA (2), CEA (2)Program costs in most studies, staff time/wages/fees in some studiesReportedMost trial-based, 1 trial/modelReported (15)3 B/C from CP studies (1.17; 9.47; 7.67). Decrease 57% in overall health direct and indirect costs; cost savings per patient; lower incremental cost per quitter; no significant changes in 2 studies
Chisholm Burns MA (2010) [47]NRDirect medical costs, Indirect costsNRTrial-basedNRImprovements in HbA1c and cholesterol and decreased medical direct costs per patient per year and decreased no. of sick days every year
Touchette DR (2014) [48]CMA (1), CUA (1)NRNR6 trial-based, 1 model-basedReported (4)1 ICER cost-effective: 10,000£/QALY; no difference in outcomes, costs increased in 2 studies; increase in prescribing antiplatelet drug use, no cost difference at 1 year; CV medical costs decreased; direct and indirect cost savings; healthcare costs/patient/year reduced
Altowaijri A (2013) [49]CEA (3), CUA (1), CBA (1), CMA (1)NRNR5 trial-based, 2 model-basedHealth system (4), society (2), not clear (1)5 CP studies cost-effective, 1 not cost-effective (but CMA used), and 1 not full economic evaluation. Cost increase, no changes in outcomes, use of CMA questionable; cost-effective; reduction of HbA1c, cost-saving on a longer term; cost saving, gain in life years; cost-effective; program seems promising in improving patient blood pressure
Elliott RA (2014) [24]CEA (5), CUA (3), CMA (1), CCA (6)Patient resource use (12), costs of intervention (13), partial costs (3), costs borne by patient (1), indirect costs (2)Reported (11)11 trial-based, 3 model-basedHealth system (12), societal (2)This review looked at methods. 4 studies CEA, 2 CUA, 1 CEA/CUA, 1 CMA, 6 CCA. Incremental analysis used in 8 full economic evaluations: cost per error avoided, cost per extra adherent patient; cost per % increase in patient adherence; cost per quitter; cost per pelvic inflammatory disease avoided; cost per QALY
Brown TJ (2016) [50]CEA (3), CUA (1)Direct costs of intervention, fee charged (1), travel costs (1)Reported3 trial-based, 1 trial/modelHealth system (3), societal (1)All 4 economic evaluation studies reported being cost-effective ranging from 181£ to 772£ per life-year saved, ICUR 2600£; studies used ICER and 1 used ICUR.
Wang Y (2016) [51]CEA (3), CBA (3)Labor costs (4), cost of intervention (3), fees charged (1), transportation costs (1)Reported9 trial-based, 1 model-basedPayer (7), provider (3), patient (1)Costs increased in both groups; B/C ratios favorable for 2 studies; no difference in 1 study; ICER cost-effective; costs avoided per person per year
Peletidi A (2016) [52]CEA/CUA (1), CEA (1)NRNRTrial-, model-basedNRBoth studies report incremental ratios ICER per quitter; ICUR per QALY, and cost-effective.
Perraudin C (2016) [53]CEA (12), CUA (10), CMA (2)Labor costs (15), costs of intervention, training costs (12), fixed costs, productivity loss OR fees charged (3)Some: lower rates for effects10 trial-based, 11 model-basedPayer (17); societal (5). Some bothAll 21 studies are economic evaluations. ICER for most studies. CEAC ranging from 59 to 97% prob. of being C/E. Uncertainty very low for screening (chlamydia and sleep apnea) and smoking cessation. Some degree of uncertainty for remainder medication or disease interventions.
Loh ZWR (2016) [54]CUA (1), not stated in other two.NRNRAll 3 trial-basedNR1 study was 100% cost-effective when WTP threshold €30,000/QALY– €45,000/QALY; 2 studies no summary measures
Malet-Larrea A (2016) [55]CEA/CUA (3), CUA (3), CEA (2), CCA (4), CMA (1)Labor costs, hospital use, GP visits, medication, supplies, productivity lossReported for all10 trial-based, 3 trial/model-basedHealth payer (9), societal (2), govn (1), both (1). Few patient/providerIncremental analysis performed in 9 studies and calculated for 3: 4 dominant; 7 cost-effective; 1 not cost-effective
Gammie T (2016) [56]CUA (8), CEA (2)NRNRNRReported (2)ICERs performed for 9 studies: 8 are cost-effective
  1. SR systematic review, CCA cost-consequence analysis, CMA cost-minimization analysis, CBA cost-benefit analysis, CEA cost-effectiveness analysis, CUA cost-utility analysis, B/C benefit-to-cost ratio, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICUR incremental cost-utility ratio