Afficher la notice abrégée

dc.contributor.authorEpstein, David Mark 
dc.contributor.authorGarcía Mochón, Leticia
dc.contributor.authorKaptoge, Stephen
dc.contributor.authorThompson, Simon G.
dc.date.accessioned2026-02-13T07:46:40Z
dc.date.available2026-02-13T07:46:40Z
dc.date.issued2015-12-18
dc.identifier.citationEpstein, D., García-Mochón, L., Kaptoge, S. et al. Modeling the costs and long-term health benefits of screening the general population for risks of cardiovascular disease: a review of methods used in the literature. Eur J Health Econ 17, 1041–1053 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-015-0753-2es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10481/110939
dc.descriptionThis work was financially supported by the EPIC-CVD project. EPIC-CVD is a European Commission funded project under the Health theme of Seventh Framework Programme that builds on EPIC-Heart, which has been funded by the Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation and European Research Council Advanced Investigator Award.es_ES
dc.description.abstractBackground: Strategies for screening and intervening to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in primary care settings need to be assessed in terms of both their costs and long-term health effects. We undertook a literature review to investigate the methodologies used. Methods: In a framework of developing a new health-economic model for evaluating different screening strategies for primary prevention of CVD in Europe (EPIC-CVD project), we identified seven key modeling issues and reviewed papers published between 2000 and 2013 to assess how they were addressed. Results: We found 13 relevant health-economic modeling studies of screening to prevent CVD in primary care. The models varied in their degree of complexity, with between two and 33 health states. Programmes that screen the whole population by a fixed cut-off (e.g., predicted 10-year CVD risk >20 %) identify predominantly elderly people, who may not be those most likely to benefit from long-term treatment. Uncertainty and model validation were generally poorly addressed. Few studies considered the disutility of taking drugs in otherwise healthy individuals or the budget impact of the programme. Conclusions: Model validation, incorporation of parameter uncertainty, and sensitivity analyses for assumptions made are all important components of model building and reporting, and deserve more attention. Complex models may not necessarily give more accurate predictions. Availability of a large enough source dataset to reliably estimate all relevant input parameters is crucial for achieving credible results. Decision criteria should consider budget impact and the medicalization of the population as well as cost-effectiveness thresholds.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Commission EPIC-CVDes_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipMedical Research Counciles_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipBritish Heart Foundationes_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Research Council Advanced Investigator Awardes_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherSpringer Naturees_ES
dc.subjectCost-effectiveness analysises_ES
dc.subjectScreeninges_ES
dc.subjectCardiovascular Diseasees_ES
dc.titleModeling the costs and long-term health benefits of screening the general population for risks of cardiovascular disease: a review of methods used in the literaturees_ES
dc.typejournal articlees_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accesses_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10198-015-0753-2
dc.type.hasVersionVoRes_ES


Fichier(s) constituant ce document

[PDF]

Ce document figure dans la(les) collection(s) suivante(s)

Afficher la notice abrégée