Search

Objectives: To systematically review health economic guidelines for information on how to present health economic evaluations and consider implications for nontechnical audiences such as policymakers.Methods: Electronic databases and supplementary sources were searched for economic evaluation guidelines. Guidelines were critically appraised. Descriptive characteristics, standard formats, supports for nontechnical audiences, presentation approaches, and common reporting recommendations were extracted. Frequencies were tabulated and trends identified.Results: Thirty-one guidelines were included. Twenty-two guidelines include a standard reporting format with some sample tables and graphs. Common presentation approaches include well-cited tables of data sources, transparent model diagrams and descriptions, disaggregated results, and tabular and graphical displays of sensitivity analyses. Despite most guidelines being funded by policymakers, only five guidelines provided advice on presenting economic evaluations to noneconomists. However, 11 guidelines included a glossary of economic terminology for nontechnical readers. Common concepts that may require further explanation include differences in economic perspectives, appropriateness of time horizons, how economic outcomes such as quality-adjusted life-years relate to their component clinical outcomes, and choice of sensitivity analyses.Conclusions: Health economists have consistent presentation formats and common reporting elements that should be considered when developing user-friendly explanations for general audiences. These overlap with policymakers' informational needs but may not be sufficient for understanding by nontechnical audiences. Developing presentation formats and tools that incorporate viewpoints of both economists and noneconomists will allow for better application of the results of economic evaluations and enhance the transparency and legitimacy of decision-making processes that are informed by economic evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To review the literature on strategies implemented or identified to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants. Methods: Studies of any type of qualitative or quantitative design examining interventions to reduce or prevent gender bias during the peer review of health-related research grants were included. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs, the Cochrane Library, Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews, and the Campbell Library were searched from 2005 to April 2016. A search for grey (i.e., difficult to locate or unpublished) literature was conducted and experts in the field were consulted to identify additional potentially relevant articles. Two individuals screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and abstracted data with discrepancies resolved by a third person consistently. Results: After screening 5524 citations and 170 full-text articles, one article evaluating gender-blinding of grant applications using an uncontrolled before-after study design was included. In this study, 891 applications for long-term fellowships in 2006 were included and 47% of the applicants were women. These were scored by 13 peer reviewers (38% were women). The intervention included eliminating references to gender from the applications, letters of recommendations, and interview reports that were sent to the committee members for evaluation. The proportion of successful applications led by women did not change with gender-blinding, although the number of successful applications that were led by men increased slightly. Conclusions: There is limited research on interventions to mitigate gender bias in the peer review of grants. Only one study was identified and no difference in the proportion of women who were successful in receiving grant funding was observed. Our results suggest that interventions to prevent gender bias should be adapted and tested in the context of grant peer review to determine if they will have an impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]