eISSN: Applied editor@oxfordianfoundation.com
Open Access

Adaptive Evidence Synthesis and Economic Evaluation for Health Benefit Package Updating in Low and Middle Income Countries

Universidad de Costa Rica, Costa Rica

Abstract

Health Benefit Package design and revision are central to the realization of universal health coverage in low and middle income countries. The increasing complexity of health systems, rapid innovation in health technologies, and the limited fiscal space available to public payers require decision making approaches that are both analytically rigorous and operationally feasible. Over the past decade, health technology assessment and economic evaluation have become institutionalized in many national priority setting processes, yet the time intensive and resource demanding nature of traditional evidence synthesis has created persistent misalignment between the pace of policy making and the speed at which reliable evidence can be generated. This study develops a comprehensive conceptual and methodological framework for integrating adaptive evidence synthesis and economic evaluation into Health Benefit Package updating processes, drawing exclusively on internationally recognized standards and empirical analyses contained in the provided reference corpus. By synthesizing the Ethiopian experience of Health Benefit Package revision, global surveys of health technology assessment practice, methodological advances in rapid and adaptive reviews, and empirical studies on the timeliness and durability of systematic reviews and economic models, this article demonstrates that adaptive methods are not merely pragmatic compromises but are epistemologically coherent and policy relevant approaches to evidence informed priority setting. The methodology combines institutional analysis, comparative review of rapid evidence services, and critical appraisal of adaptive economic evaluation techniques. Results indicate that when appropriately structured and transparently reported, adaptive methods can preserve scientific rigor while significantly improving the timeliness and relevance of evidence used in benefit package decisions. The discussion explores the implications for governance, methodological standardization, and long term sustainability of Health Benefit Package updating in low and middle income countries. The article concludes that adaptive evidence ecosystems are essential for ensuring that Health Benefit Packages remain responsive to changing population needs, technological innovation, and fiscal realities, thereby strengthening the credibility and impact of health technology assessment in the pursuit of universal health coverage.

Keywords

References

πŸ“„ 1. Andersen M, Gulen S, Fonnes S, Andresen K, Rosenberg J. Half of Cochrane reviews were published more than 2 years after the protocol. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2020;124:85 to 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.05.011
πŸ“„ 2. Borah R, Brown A, Capers P, Kaiser K. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e012545. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545
πŸ“„ 3. CADTH. About the Rapid Response Service. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. 2021. Available from https://www.cadth.ca/about-cadth/what-we-do/products-services/rapid-response-service
πŸ“„ 4. Chauhan AS, Sharma D, Mehndiratta A, Gupta N, Garg B, Kumar AP, et al. Validating the rigour of adaptive methods of economic evaluation. BMJ Global Health. 2023;8:12277.
πŸ“„ 5. Eregata GT, Hailu A, Geletu ZA, Memirie ST, Johansson KA, Stenberg K, et al. Revision of the Ethiopian Essential Health Service Package: An Explication of the Process and Methods Used. Health Systems Reform. 2020;6(1):12.
πŸ“„ 6. Jorgensen N. Prioritize Your Priority Setting Efforts When Updating an HBP: A Framework for LMICs. iHEA. 2023.
πŸ“„ 7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;151(4):264 to 269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
πŸ“„ 8. NCPE Ireland. Rapid review template. National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics Ireland.
πŸ“„ 9. Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff J, Akl E, Brennan S, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2021;10(1):1 to 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
πŸ“„ 10. Peacocke EF, Heupink LF, Ananthakrishnan A, Fronsdal KB. Is it the Right Topic? An Overlooked Stage in the Institutionalization of Health Technology Assessment. Health Systems Reform. 2023;9(3).
πŸ“„ 11. Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation using decision analytical modelling: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d1766
πŸ“„ 12. Prinja S. Systematic Priority Setting for UHC in India Using Economic Evidence. iHEA. 2023.
πŸ“„ 13. Runjic E, Behmen D, Pieper D, Mathes T, Tricco A, Moher D, Puljak L. Following Cochrane review protocols to completion 10 years later: a retrospective cohort study and author survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2019;111:41 to 48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.006
πŸ“„ 14. Shields G, Pennington B, Bullement A, Wright S, Elvidge J. Out of Date or Best Before? A Commentary on the Relevance of Economic Evaluations Over Time. PharmacoEconomics. 2022;40(3):249 to 256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-021-01116-4
πŸ“„ 15. Shojania K, Sampson M, Ansari M, Ji J, Garritty C, Rader T, Moher D. Updating systematic reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009914
πŸ“„ 16. World Health Organization. Health Technology Assessment and Health Benefit Package Survey 2020 to 2021. Geneva. 2021.
Views: 0    Downloads: 0
Views
Downloads