You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Review
Health economic evaluation in ophthalmology
  1. Alp Atik1,2,
  2. Keith Barton3,4,
  3. Augusto Azuara-Blanco5,
  4. Nathan M Kerr1,2
  1. 1 Glaucoma, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia
  2. 2 Centre for Eye Research Australia Ltd, East Melbourne, Australia
  3. 3 Glaucoma Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK
  4. 4 UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK
  5. 5 Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
  1. Correspondence to Nathan Mitchell Kerr, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Level 7, 32 Gisborne St, East Melbourne 3002, UK; nathan.kerr{at}eyeandear.org.au

Abstract

Health economic evaluation is the application of economic theories, tools and concepts to healthcare. In the setting of limited resources, increasing demand and a growing array of intervention options, economic evaluation provides a framework for measuring, valuing and comparing the costs and benefits of different healthcare interventions. This review provides an overview of the concepts and methods of economic evaluation, illustrated with examples in ophthalmology. Types of economic evaluation include cost-minimisation, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and economic modelling. Topics including utility measures, the quality-adjusted lifeyear, discounting, perspective and timeframe are discussed. Health economic evaluation is important to understand the costs and value of interventions in ophthalmology and to inform health policy as well as guide clinical decision-making.

  • Treatment other
  • Public health
  • Medical Education
  • Epidemiology

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2020-316880

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors contributed to the planning, conduct and reporting of the work. AA: conception and initial draft. KB: editing and writing subsequent drafts. AAB:- editing and writing subsequent draft. NMK: conception, editing and writing subsequent drafts.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement Not applicable.