|
Jeff Round Person1 #695114 Jeff Round, BA (Hons), MA, PhD, is Director of Economics at the IHE. | - He specializes in policy evaluation, decision analytic modelling and health technology assessment. His research encompasses both applied and methodological topics in health economics and economic evaluation. His primary methodological interest is the assessment of the equitable distribution of health gains within economic evaluations and statistical methods for the estimation of health state utilities. Prior to joining IHE he spent 10 years in the UK academic sector. He is Adjunct Professor at the School of Public Health, University of Alberta and Honorary Senior Lecturer in Health Economic Modelling at the University of Bristol.
|
+Citavimą (2) - CitavimąPridėti citatąList by: CiterankMapLink[2] Generic Health Utility Measures in Exercise Oncology: A Scoping Review and Future Directions
Cituoja: Joanna F. Parkinson, Paula A. Ospina, Jeff Round, Margaret L. McNeely, C. Allyson Jones Publication date: 28 September 2023 Publication info: Curr. Oncol. 2023, 30(10), 8888-8901 Cituojamas: David Price 2:47 PM 11 December 2023 GMT Citerank: (2) 701020CANMOD – PublicationsPublications by CANMOD Members144B5ACA0, 704015Cancer859FDEF6 URL: DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol30100642
| Ištrauka - [Current Oncology, 28 September 2023]
Despite the evidence that exercise is effective at mitigating common side effects in adults with cancer, it is rarely part of usual cancer care. One reason for this is the lack of economic evidence supporting the benefit of exercise. Economic evaluations often rely on the use of generic utility measures to assess cost effectiveness. This review identifies and synthesizes the literature on the use of generic utility measures used to evaluate exercise interventions for adults with cancer. A systematic search of the literature from January 2000 to February 2023 was conducted using four databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete). Exercise studies involving adults with any type of cancer that used a generic utility measure were eligible for inclusion. Of the 2780 citations retrieved, 10 articles were included in this review. Seven articles included economic evaluations, with varying results. Four studies reported on cost-effectiveness; however, detailed effectiveness data derived from the generic utility measure were often not reported. Generic utility measures help to compare baseline values of and changes in health utility weights across studies and to general population norms; however, to date, they are underutilized in exercise oncology studies. Consideration should be given to the identified research evidence, population, and methodological gaps. |
|
|