↓ Skip to main content

International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40273-017-0544-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donna Rowen, Ismail Azzabi Zouraq, Helene Chevrou-Severac, Ben van Hout

Abstract

Recommendations and guidelines for the collection, generation, source and usage of utility data for health technology assessment (HTA) vary across different countries, with no international consensus. Many international agencies generate their own guidelines providing details on their preferred methods for HTA submissions, and there is variability in both what they recommend and the clarity and amount of detail provided in their guidelines. This article provides an overview of international regulations and recommendations for utility data in HTA for a selection of key HTA countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain (Catalonia), Sweden and the UK (England/Wales and Scotland). International guidelines are typically clear and detailed for the selection of countries assessed regarding the source description of health states (e.g. generic preference-based measure) and who should provide preference weights for these health states (e.g. general population for own country). Many guidelines specify the use of off-the-shelf generic preference-based measures, and some further specify a measure, such as EQ-5D. However, international guidelines are either unclear or lack detailed guidance regarding the collection (e.g. patients report own health), source (e.g. clinical trial) and usage (e.g. adjusting for comorbidities) of utility values. It is argued that there is a need for transparent and detailed international guidelines on utility data recommendations to provide decision makers with the best possible evidence. Where this is not possible it is recommended that best practice should be used to inform the collection, source and usage of utility values in HTA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 21%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 10%
Social Sciences 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 23 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,632,539
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#237
of 1,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,652
of 327,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#5
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,862 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,202 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.