Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

Jeonghoon Ahn

2 Articles

The Primary Process and Key Concepts of Economic Evaluation in Healthcare: Younhee Kim, Yunjung Kim, Hyeon-Jeong Lee, Seulki Lee, Sun-Young Park, Sung-Hee Oh, Suhyun Jang, Taejin Lee, Jeonghoon Ahn, Sangjin Shin; J Prev Med Public Health. 2022;55(5):415-423. Published online August 24, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.22.195

5,875 View
300 Download
4 Web of Science
5 Crossref

Economic evaluations in the healthcare are used to assess economic efficiency of pharmaceuticals and medical interventions such as diagnoses and medical procedures. This study introduces the main concepts of economic evaluation across its key steps: planning, outcome and cost calculation, modeling, cost-effectiveness results, uncertainty analysis, and decision-making. When planning an economic evaluation, we determine the study population, intervention, comparators, perspectives, time horizon, discount rates, and type of economic evaluation. In healthcare economic evaluations, outcomes include changes in mortality, the survival rate, life years, and quality-adjusted life years, while costs include medical, non-medical, and productivity costs. Model-based economic evaluations, including decision tree and Markov models, are mainly used to calculate the total costs and total effects. In cost-effectiveness or costutility analyses, cost-effectiveness is evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which is the additional cost per one additional unit of effectiveness gained by an intervention compared with a comparator. All outcomes have uncertainties owing to limited evidence, diverse methodologies, and unexplained variation. Thus, researchers should review these uncertainties and confirm their robustness. We hope to contribute to the establishment and dissemination of economic evaluation methodologies that reflect Korean clinical and research environment and ultimately improve the rationality of healthcare policies.

Summary

Korean summary
보건의료분야에서 경제성 평가는 의약품과 진단검사 및 치료법 등 의료기술에 대한 평가에서 널리 활용되고 있다. 본 연구에서는 경제성 평가절차를 경제성 평가 설계, 결과 산출, 비용산출, 모형 구축 및 분석, 비용-효과성 결과 제시 및 불확실성 평가와 의사 결정 단계로 나누어 주요 개념과 쟁점들을 소개하였다.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Understanding Data and Opportunities Focused on Value
Andrew M. Wilson, Martha Sylvia, Anelyssa D'Abreu, Connor Hansen, Maha Salah-Ud-Din, Aiesha Ahmed
Neurology Clinical Practice.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
β-Lactam allergy delabeling is safe and saves costs in Primary Care
Joaquín Quiralte, María del Robledo Ávila, Isabel Domínguez, Estela Menéndez, José Miguel Cisneros, Ana Belén Guisado
Atención Primaria.2024; 56(11): 102925. CrossRef
National Recommendations for Pharmacoeconomic Evaluations Reporting for Reimbursement and Procurement of New Pharmaceutical Applications in Egypt
Mary Gamal, Amal Samir Sedrak, Gihan Hamdy Elsisi, Ahmed Elagamy, Ahmed Seyam, Mariam Eldebeiky, Randa Eldessoki
Global Journal on Quality and Safety in Healthcare.2024; 7(4): 216. CrossRef
Implementation Science in School Mental Health: A 10-Year Progress Update and Development of a New Research Agenda
Aaron R. Lyon, Elizabeth H. Connors, Gwendolyn M. Lawson, Erum Nadeem, Julie Sarno Owens
School Mental Health.2024; 16(4): 1013. CrossRef
Outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales at a long-term care facility in Seoul, Korea: surveillance and intervention mitigation strategies
Yoojin Park, Euncheol Son, Young June Choe, Cho Ryok Kang, Sangmi Roh, Young Ok Hwang, Sung-il Cho, Jihwan Bang
Epidemiology and Health.2023; 45: e2023057. CrossRef

Development and Validation of a Novel Generic Health-related Quality of Life Instrument With 20 Items (HINT-20): Min-Woo Jo, Hyeon-Jeong Lee, Soo Young Kim, Seon-Ha Kim, Hyejung Chang, Jeonghoon Ahn, Minsu Ock; J Prev Med Public Health. 2017;50(1):38-59. Published online January 10, 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.16.081

9,971 View
224 Download
7 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Objectives
Few attempts have been made to develop a generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument and to examine its validity and reliability in Korea. We aimed to do this in our present study.
Methods
After a literature review of existing generic HRQoL instruments, a focus group discussion, in-depth interviews, and expert consultations, we selected 30 tentative items for a new HRQoL measure. These items were evaluated by assessing their ceiling effects, difficulty, and redundancy in the first survey. To validate the HRQoL instrument that was developed, known-groups validity and convergent/discriminant validity were evaluated and its test-retest reliability was examined in the second survey.
Results
Of the 30 items originally assessed for the HRQoL instrument, four were excluded due to high ceiling effects and six were removed due to redundancy. We ultimately developed a HRQoL instrument with a reduced number of 20 items, known as the Health-related Quality of Life Instrument with 20 items (HINT-20), incorporating physical, mental, social, and positive health dimensions. The results of the HINT-20 for known-groups validity were poorer in women, the elderly, and those with a low income. For convergent/discriminant validity, the correlation coefficients of items (except vitality) in the physical health dimension with the physical component summary of the Short Form 36 version 2 (SF-36v2) were generally higher than the correlations of those items with the mental component summary of the SF-36v2, and vice versa. Regarding test-retest reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficient of the total HINT-20 score was 0.813 (p<0.001).
Conclusions
A novel generic HRQoL instrument, the HINT-20, was developed for the Korean general population and showed acceptable validity and reliability.

Summary

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Socio-demographic And Household Sanitation Factors Affect the Quality of Life
Faiza Yuniati
Journal of Applied Nursing and Health.2024; 6(1): 14. CrossRef
A Review of the Types and Characteristics of Healthy Life Expectancy and Methodological Issues
Young-Eun Kim, Yoon-Sun Jung, Minsu Ock, Seok-Jun Yoon
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health.2022; 55(1): 1. CrossRef
Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) Instruments and Mobility: A Systematic Review
Natalia Hernández-Segura, Alba Marcos-Delgado, Arrate Pinto-Carral, Tania Fernández-Villa, Antonio J. Molina
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2022; 19(24): 16493. CrossRef
Concepts of Health-Related Quality of Life of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children: Parent Perceptions
Kaley Butten, Peter A. Newcombe, Anne B. Chang, Jeanie K. Sheffield, Kerry-Ann F. O’Grady, Newell W. Johnson, Neil King, Maree Toombs
Applied Research in Quality of Life.2021; 16(4): 1653. CrossRef
Meaning and Status of Health-related Quality of Life Recognized by Medical Professionals: a Qualitative Study
Jeehee Pyo, Minsu Ock, Bohyun Park, Nam-eun Kim, Eun Jeong Choi, Hyesook Park, Hyeong Sik Ahn
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Validity and reliability of the Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument with 8 Items (HINT-8) in Korean breast cancer patients
Juyoung Kim, Min-Woo Jo, Hyeon-Jeong Lee, Sei-Hyun Ahn, Byung Ho Son, Jong Won Lee, Sae Byul Lee
Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives.2021; 12(4): 254. CrossRef
Developing a comprehensive, culturally sensitive conceptual framework of health domains in Singapore
Julian Thumboo, Mandy Y. L. Ow, Elenore Judy B. Uy, Xiaohui Xin, Zi Ying Clarice Chan, Sharon C. Sung, Dianne Carrol Bautista, Yin Bun Cheung, Xiang Li
PLOS ONE.2018; 13(6): e0199881. CrossRef

Author index