Published in:
Open Access 01-12-2024 | Research
Health technology assessment to support health benefits package design: a systematic review of economic evaluation evidence in Zambia
Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2024
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
Health technology assessment uses explicit economic evaluation evidence to support health benefits package design. However, the limited availability of technical expertise, data, and methods has restricted the production of economic evaluation evidence in low- and middle-income countries. Zambia has initiated a roadmap to support its policy of reviewing and implementing its national benefits package. This study characterises economic evaluation evidence to support this process's evidence mapping, synthesis, and appraisal stages.
Methods
This systematic review applies deductive analysis and the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses. Four databases were searched to identify studies from 1993 that coincided with Zambia's health benefits package reform.
Results
A total of 61 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were first authored by nonlocal authors, and the number of local-based authors in each study was low. Almost all funding for economic evaluation research was not local, and only a few studies sought local ethical clearance to conduct research. Infectious diseases were the highest disease control priority for the studies, with HIV research having the highest output. Most of the studies were cost-effectiveness studies that utilised trial-based data and a combination of program, published, and unpublished data for analysis. The studies generally utilised direct cost and applied the ingredient-based costing approach. Natural units were predominantly used for outcomes alongside DALYs. Most studies reported using a 3% discount rate for both costs and outcomes, with only a few reporting methods for sensitivity analysis.
Conclusion
Economic evaluation evidence in Zambia has increased, revealing limited local research leadership, methodological inconsistencies, and a focus on infectious diseases. These findings are crucial for revising Zambia's benefits package and may guide researchers and decision-makers in improving the transparency and quality of future research.
