J Korean Med Assoc.  2016 Jul;59(7):536-546. 10.5124/jkma.2016.59.7.536.

Association between research topics and disease burden in health technology assessment

• Kim HS
• Lee J
• Yoo BN

• KMID: 2343870
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2016.59.7.536

Abstract

The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA), an institution for health technology assessment in Korea, has used public solicitation of research topics since its establishment in 2009. This creates a necessity for examining whether a given research topic was selected to be considered when prioritizing healthcare technology assessment and distributing healthcare resources. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between the research topics suggested to NECA and the disease burden in Korea. To find the correlation between disease burden and 1,112 suggested topics and 91 performed topics that were classified by Human Research Classification System a linear auxiliary trend line and scatter plot were constructed using disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated. The results suggested that cancer was most common, followed by cardiovascular diseases, among suggested research topics and research topics performed by NECA, as well as in terms of the ratio of performed to suggested topics. The correlation between research topic and disease burden index indicated a strong correlation with DALYs and years of life lost (YLLs). However, years lived with disability and research topic had no relationship. Suggested topics showed a greater correlation with YLLs than DALYs, whereas performed topics showed a greater correlation with DALYs than YLLs, showing that despite the fact that the diseases with a high burden from morbidity were appropriately considered with respect to selecting research topics, a statistically significant difference was not found. As the first Korean study to assess the correlation between research topics and disease burden, our results will be used as base data for prioritizing the allocation of healthcare resources in the future.

Keyword

Research topic; Cost of illness; Disability-adjusted life years

MeSH Terms

Adenosine-5'-(N-ethylcarboxamide)
Biomedical Technology*
Cardiovascular Diseases
Classification
Cost of Illness
Delivery of Health Care
Evidence-Based Practice
Humans
Korea
Technology Assessment, Biomedical*
Adenosine-5'-(N-ethylcarboxamide)

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Scatter plots with suggested topics, performed topics, Korea disability-adjusted life years (DALYs; A,B), years of life lost (YLLs; C,D), and years lived with disability (YLDs; E,F).

Reference

1. Kim CM. Health economics and outcomes research. Korean J Fam Med. 2009; 30:577–587.

2. Heo DS. Economic analysis of health technology and development of outcome research system. Seoul: Seoul National University;2008.

3. Yoon HS. Issues of health care decision-making process in protection-type expansion policy. KDI Policy Forum. 2007; (178):2007–2006.

4. Gross CP, Anderson GF, Powe NR. The relation between funding by the National Institutes of Health and the burden of disease. N Engl J Med. 1999; 340:1881–1887.

5. Husereau D, Boucher M, Noorani H. Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010; 26:341–347.

6. Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R, Skidmore B. Priority setting for health technology assessments: a systematic review of current practical approaches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007; 23:310–315.

7. Terry RF, van der Rijt T. Overview of research activities associated with the World Health Organization: results of a survey covering 2006/07. Health Res Policy Syst. 2010; 8:25.

8. UK Clinical Research Collaboration. UK health research analysis 2004/05. London: UK Clinical Research Collaboration;2006.

9. UK Clinical Research Collaboration. UK health research analysis 2009/10. London: UK Clinical Research Collaboration;2012.

10. Kinge JM, Roxrud I, Vollset SE, Skirbekk V, Rottingen JA. Are the Norwegian health research investments in line with the disease burden? Health Res Policy Syst. 2014; 12:64.

11. Carter AJ, Nguyen CN. A comparison of cancer burden and research spending reveals discrepancies in the distribution of research funding. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12:526.

12. Stuckler D, King L, Robinson H, McKee M. WHO's budgetary allocations and burden of disease: a comparative analysis. Lancet. 2008; 372:1563–1569.

13. Gillum LA, Gouveia C, Dorsey ER, Pletcher M, Mathers CD, McCulloch CE, Johnston SC. NIH disease funding levels and burden of disease. PLoS One. 2011; 6:e16837.

14. Nielsen CP, Funch TM, Kristensen FB. Health technology assessment: research trends and future priorities in Europe. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011; 16:Suppl 2. 6–15.

15. European Science Foundation. Health research classification systems: current approaches and future recommendations [Internet]. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation;2011. cited 2016 Jun 22. Available from: http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/spb43_Health_Research_Classification.pdf.

16. Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation. GBD 2010 data [Internet]. Seattle: Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation;cited 2016 Jun 22. Available from: http://www.healthdata.org/gbd/data.

17. Murray CJ. Quantifying the burden of disease: the technical basis for disability-adjusted life years. Bull World Health Organ. 1994; 72:429–445.

18. Fenwick A. The global burden of neglected tropical diseases. Public Health. 2012; 126:233–236.

19. Teerawattananon Y, Russell S, Mugford M. A systematic review of economic evaluation literature in Thailand: are the data good enough to be used by policy-makers? Pharmacoeconomics. 2007; 25:467–479.

20. Nord E. Disability weights in the global burden of disease 2010: unclear meaning and overstatement of international agreement. Health Policy. 2013; 111:99–104.

21. Ustun TB, Rehm J, Chatterji S, Saxena S, Trotter R, Room R, Bickenbach J. Multiple-informant ranking of the disabling effects of different health conditions in 14 countries: WHO/NIH Joint Project CAR Study Group. Lancet. 1999; 354:111–115.

22. Salomon JA, Vos T, Hogan DR, Gagnon M, Naghavi M, Mokdad A, Begum N, Shah R, Karyana M, Kosen S, Farje MR, Moncada G, Dutta A, Sazawal S, Dyer A, Seiler J, Aboyans V, Baker L, Baxter A, Benjamin EJ, Bhalla K, Bin Abdulhak A, Blyth F, Bourne R, Braithwaite T, Brooks P, Brugha TS, Bryan-Hancock C, Buchbinder R, Burney P, Calabria B, Chen H, Chugh SS, Cooley R, Criqui MH, Cross M, Dabhadkar KC, Dahodwala N, Davis A, Degenhardt L, Diaz-Torne C, Dorsey ER, Driscoll T, Edmond K, Elbaz A, Ezzati M, Feigin V, Ferri CP, Flaxman AD, Flood L, Fransen M, Fuse K, Gabbe BJ, Gillum RF, Haagsma J, Harrison JE, Havmoeller R, Hay RJ, Hel-Baqui A, Hoek HW, Hoffman H, Hogeland E, Hoy D, Jarvis D, Karthikeyan G, Knowlton LM, Lathlean T, Leasher JL, Lim SS, Lipshultz SE, Lopez AD, Lozano R, Lyons R, Malekzadeh R, Marcenes W, March L, Margolis DJ, McGill N, McGrath J, Mensah GA, Meyer AC, Michaud C, Moran A, Mori R, Murdoch ME, Naldi L, Newton CR, Norman R, Omer SB, Osborne R, Pearce N, Perez-Ruiz F, Perico N, Pesudovs K, Phillips D, Pourmalek F, Prince M, Rehm JT, Remuzzi G, Richardson K, Room R, Saha S, Sampson U, Sanchez-Riera L, Segui-Gomez M, Shahraz S, Shibuya K, Singh D, Sliwa K, Smith E, Soerjomataram I, Steiner T, Stolk WA, Stovner LJ, Sudfeld C, Taylor HR, Tleyjeh IM, van der Werf MJ, Watson WL, Weatherall DJ, Weintraub R, Weisskopf MG, Whiteford H, Wilkinson JD, Woolf AD, Zheng ZJ, Murray CJ, Jonas JB. Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012; 380:2129–2143.