A critical review of methodologies used in pharmaceutical pricing policy analyses

Iris R Joosse; David Tordrup; Lisa Bero; Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse; Hendrika A van den Ham

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.03.003

A critical review of methodologies used in pharmaceutical pricing policy analyses

Iris R Joosse, David Tordrup, Lisa Bero, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse, Hendrika A van den Ham

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Robust evidence from health policy research has the potential to inform policy-making, but studies have suggested that methodological shortcomings are abundant. We aimed to identify common methodological weaknesses in pharmaceutical pricing policy analyses. A systematic review (SR) of studies examining pharmaceutical pricing policies served as basis for the present analysis. We selected all studies that were included in the SR (n = 56), and those that were excluded from the SR due to ineligible study designs only (n = 101). Risk of bias was assessed and specific study design issues were recorded to identify recurrent methodological issues. Sixty-one percent of studies with a study design eligible for the SR presented with a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Potential interference of co-interventions was a source of possible bias in 53% of interrupted time series studies. Failing to consider potential confounders was the primary cause for potential bias in difference-in-differences, regression, and panel data analyses. In 101 studies with a study design not eligible for the SR, 32% were uncontrolled before-after studies and 23% were studies without pre-intervention data. Some of the methodological issues encountered may be resolved during the design of a study. Awareness among researchers on methodological issues will help improve the rigor of health policy research in general.

Original language	English
Article number	104576
Journal	Health Policy
Volume	134
Early online date	13 Mar 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.03.003
Publication status	Published - Aug 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors wish to thank colleagues at York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC) who contributed to the initial search, document management and screening process of studies: Julie Glanville, Eleanor Kotas, Ross Birtles, Mick Arber, Chris Bartlett, and James Mahon. The authors are also grateful to the other members of our systematic review team for their role in extracting the data: Christine Leopold, Lizanne Arnoldy, Lynn Al-Tayara, Tom Buijs and Daniela Moye Holz. Finally, we would like to thank YingYao Chen and Kiu Tay-Teo for their assistance in extracting and translating information from articles in Chinese.

Funding Information:
The systematic review of ten pharmaceutical pricing policies was commissioned and funded by the World Health Organization (WHO), under a grant from the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), as part of the process for developing the 2020 WHO Guideline on Country Pharmaceutical Pricing Policies. The WHO secretariat and its advisors provided technical supports for formulating the systematic review protocol, performing specific searches on government websites, and translating several non-English publications.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022

Keywords

Interrupted time series
Methodological issues
Policy analysis
Pricing policies
Risk of bias
Study designs

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.03.003Licence: CC BY

1-s2.0-S0168851022000598-mainFinal published version, 1.02 MBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{a2ad3f1c8a83496db988c12f747da82b,

title = "A critical review of methodologies used in pharmaceutical pricing policy analyses",

abstract = "Robust evidence from health policy research has the potential to inform policy-making, but studies have suggested that methodological shortcomings are abundant. We aimed to identify common methodological weaknesses in pharmaceutical pricing policy analyses. A systematic review (SR) of studies examining pharmaceutical pricing policies served as basis for the present analysis. We selected all studies that were included in the SR (n = 56), and those that were excluded from the SR due to ineligible study designs only (n = 101). Risk of bias was assessed and specific study design issues were recorded to identify recurrent methodological issues. Sixty-one percent of studies with a study design eligible for the SR presented with a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Potential interference of co-interventions was a source of possible bias in 53% of interrupted time series studies. Failing to consider potential confounders was the primary cause for potential bias in difference-in-differences, regression, and panel data analyses. In 101 studies with a study design not eligible for the SR, 32% were uncontrolled before-after studies and 23% were studies without pre-intervention data. Some of the methodological issues encountered may be resolved during the design of a study. Awareness among researchers on methodological issues will help improve the rigor of health policy research in general.",

keywords = "Interrupted time series, Methodological issues, Policy analysis, Pricing policies, Risk of bias, Study designs",

author = "Joosse, {Iris R} and David Tordrup and Lisa Bero and Mantel-Teeuwisse, {Aukje K} and {van den Ham}, {Hendrika A}",

note = "Funding Information: The authors wish to thank colleagues at York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC) who contributed to the initial search, document management and screening process of studies: Julie Glanville, Eleanor Kotas, Ross Birtles, Mick Arber, Chris Bartlett, and James Mahon. The authors are also grateful to the other members of our systematic review team for their role in extracting the data: Christine Leopold, Lizanne Arnoldy, Lynn Al-Tayara, Tom Buijs and Daniela Moye Holz. Finally, we would like to thank YingYao Chen and Kiu Tay-Teo for their assistance in extracting and translating information from articles in Chinese. Funding Information: The systematic review of ten pharmaceutical pricing policies was commissioned and funded by the World Health Organization (WHO), under a grant from the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), as part of the process for developing the 2020 WHO Guideline on Country Pharmaceutical Pricing Policies. The WHO secretariat and its advisors provided technical supports for formulating the systematic review protocol, performing specific searches on government websites, and translating several non-English publications. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022",

year = "2023",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.03.003",

language = "English",

volume = "134",

journal = "Health Policy",

issn = "0168-8510",

publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A critical review of methodologies used in pharmaceutical pricing policy analyses

AU - Joosse, Iris R

AU - Tordrup, David

AU - Bero, Lisa

AU - Mantel-Teeuwisse, Aukje K

AU - van den Ham, Hendrika A

N1 - Funding Information: The authors wish to thank colleagues at York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC) who contributed to the initial search, document management and screening process of studies: Julie Glanville, Eleanor Kotas, Ross Birtles, Mick Arber, Chris Bartlett, and James Mahon. The authors are also grateful to the other members of our systematic review team for their role in extracting the data: Christine Leopold, Lizanne Arnoldy, Lynn Al-Tayara, Tom Buijs and Daniela Moye Holz. Finally, we would like to thank YingYao Chen and Kiu Tay-Teo for their assistance in extracting and translating information from articles in Chinese. Funding Information: The systematic review of ten pharmaceutical pricing policies was commissioned and funded by the World Health Organization (WHO), under a grant from the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), as part of the process for developing the 2020 WHO Guideline on Country Pharmaceutical Pricing Policies. The WHO secretariat and its advisors provided technical supports for formulating the systematic review protocol, performing specific searches on government websites, and translating several non-English publications. Publisher Copyright: © 2022

PY - 2023/8

Y1 - 2023/8

N2 - Robust evidence from health policy research has the potential to inform policy-making, but studies have suggested that methodological shortcomings are abundant. We aimed to identify common methodological weaknesses in pharmaceutical pricing policy analyses. A systematic review (SR) of studies examining pharmaceutical pricing policies served as basis for the present analysis. We selected all studies that were included in the SR (n = 56), and those that were excluded from the SR due to ineligible study designs only (n = 101). Risk of bias was assessed and specific study design issues were recorded to identify recurrent methodological issues. Sixty-one percent of studies with a study design eligible for the SR presented with a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Potential interference of co-interventions was a source of possible bias in 53% of interrupted time series studies. Failing to consider potential confounders was the primary cause for potential bias in difference-in-differences, regression, and panel data analyses. In 101 studies with a study design not eligible for the SR, 32% were uncontrolled before-after studies and 23% were studies without pre-intervention data. Some of the methodological issues encountered may be resolved during the design of a study. Awareness among researchers on methodological issues will help improve the rigor of health policy research in general.

AB - Robust evidence from health policy research has the potential to inform policy-making, but studies have suggested that methodological shortcomings are abundant. We aimed to identify common methodological weaknesses in pharmaceutical pricing policy analyses. A systematic review (SR) of studies examining pharmaceutical pricing policies served as basis for the present analysis. We selected all studies that were included in the SR (n = 56), and those that were excluded from the SR due to ineligible study designs only (n = 101). Risk of bias was assessed and specific study design issues were recorded to identify recurrent methodological issues. Sixty-one percent of studies with a study design eligible for the SR presented with a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Potential interference of co-interventions was a source of possible bias in 53% of interrupted time series studies. Failing to consider potential confounders was the primary cause for potential bias in difference-in-differences, regression, and panel data analyses. In 101 studies with a study design not eligible for the SR, 32% were uncontrolled before-after studies and 23% were studies without pre-intervention data. Some of the methodological issues encountered may be resolved during the design of a study. Awareness among researchers on methodological issues will help improve the rigor of health policy research in general.

KW - Interrupted time series

KW - Methodological issues

KW - Policy analysis

KW - Pricing policies

KW - Risk of bias

KW - Study designs

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126583553&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.03.003

DO - 10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.03.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 35317924

SN - 0168-8510

VL - 134

JO - Health Policy

JF - Health Policy

M1 - 104576

ER -

A critical review of methodologies used in pharmaceutical pricing policy analyses

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this