El formato importa: comprensión de estudios económicos por público no especializado

This contribution summarizes the results of the presentation that won the award for the best short oral communication at the XLIII AES Conference in June 2024.

The economic evaluations of health technologies They are part of the decision-making process in health policies. However, there is evidence about the challenges it may have for decision-makers. understand concepts techniques such as quality-adjusted life years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or graphics such as cost-effectiveness plans (Chen et al., 2007; Oliva et al., 2010; Williams et al., 2008). At the same time, having a certain level of knowledge can help the general population to better understand the decision-making process and the reasons why those health technologies that are effective are not always financed by the National Health System (Williams et al., 2008; Dakin et al., 2015).

These challenges justify the research efforts carried out to communicate better results aimed at decision makers, as well as other non-technical audiences. Although previous studies have analyzed the impact of different formats for communicating clinical results (Crick and Hartling, 2015; Buljan et al., 2018; Bredbener and Simon, 2019), to our knowledge, none have focused on the results of economic evaluations of health technologies. Therefore, the objective of the FORM-EE study It was a different design. formats for the presentation of a summary of an economic evaluation and observe which of them best conveys the key message and is best received by two types of audiences: general public and professionals (clinicians, clinical and non-clinical managers, or methodologists in health technology evaluation).

First, we create a summary of a hypothetical economic evaluation, intentionally choosing a known disease (hip arthritis) and a situation in which the intervention (hip prosthesis) is more effective and more expensive than the comparator, so it is necessary to calculate . the ICER and compare it with the cost-effectiveness threshold. Second, we design different formats of this summary: infographic, text only and video summary for the general population; and executive summary and policy report for professionals. The participants were randomly shown one of the formats and through online questionnaires, data on the objective and subjective understanding and perceived usefulness/acceptability.

We observe that the general population I understood the message better with the infographic than with the video summary or just the text; However, the video summary was better perceived than the text. If we prioritize understanding over attractiveness, infographic It could be a good way to present economic results to this audience. On the other hand, the professionals gained a similar understanding after reading the summary or executive policy reportbut the second was perceived as more acceptable and useful to convey the message. Therefore, it would be advisable to use visually attractive formats, such as policy report, for the dissemination of results to professionals.

In conclusion, it is necessary to find a balance between effectiveness of message transmission and the attractiveness of the formatso that the data reaches its target audience and is understood. If the general public, patients and healthcare professionals better understand how economic evaluations inform policy decisions, it will be easier for the people who make those decisions to defend them transparently.

The project PI20/00815 «Impact of the format on the understanding of economic data in evaluation of health technologies. “Randomized controlled trial” has received funding from the Carlos III Health Institute (ISCIII) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

The manuscript was submitted to a journal and is in the peer review phase.

Co-authors:

Benjamín Rodríguez Díaz

Canarian Foundation Canary Islands Health Research Institute (FIISC); Evaluation Service of the Canarian Health Service (SESCS); Spanish Network of Agencies for the Evaluation of Health Technologies and Benefits of the National Health System (RedETS). benjamín.rodriguezdiaz@sescs.es

Cristina Valcárcel Nazco

Canarian Foundation Canary Islands Health Research Institute (FIISC); Evaluation Service of the Canarian Health Service (SESCS); Spanish Network of Agencies for the Evaluation of Health Technologies and Benefits of the National Health System (RedETS), Research Network on Chronicity, Primary Care and Prevention and Health Promotion (RICAPPS). cristina.valcarcelnazco@sescs.es

Iñaki Imaz-Iglesia

Health Technology Assessment Agency (AETS), Carlos III Health Institute (ISCIII); Spanish Network of Agencies for the Evaluation of Health Technologies and Benefits of the National Health System (RedETS), Research Network on Chronicity, Primary Care and Prevention and Health Promotion (RICAPPS). imaz@isciii.es

Montserrat Carmona Rodríguez

Health Technology Assessment Agency (AETS), Carlos III Health Institute (ISCIII); Spanish Network of Agencies for the Evaluation of Health Technologies and Benefits of the National Health System (RedETS), Research Network on Chronicity, Primary Care and Prevention and Health Promotion (RICAPPS). montse.carmona@isciii.es

Lidia García Pérez

Canarian Foundation Canary Islands Health Research Institute (FIISC); Evaluation Service of the Canarian Health Service (SESCS); Spanish Network of Agencies for the Evaluation of Health Technologies and Benefits of the National Health System (RedETS), Research Network on Chronicity, Primary Care and Prevention and Health Promotion (RICAPPS). lidia.garciaperez@sescs.es