- Gordon H Guyatt, professor1,
- Andrew D Oxman, researcher2,
- Regina Kunz, associate professor3,
- Roman Jaeschke, clinical professor4,
- Mark Helfand, professor of medicine5,
- Alessandro Liberati, professor6,
- Gunn E Vist, researcher2,
- Holger J Schünemann, associate professor7
- for the GRADE working group
- 1Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8N 3Z5
- 2Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, PO Box 7004, 0130 Oslo, Norway
- 3Basel Institute of Clinical Epidemiology, University Hospital Basel, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
- 4Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8N 3Z5
- 5Portland VA Medical Center and OHSU Department of Medicine, Portland, Oregon 97201
- 6Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia and Agenzia Sanitaria Regionale, Regione Emilia Romagna, 40127 Bologna, Italy
- 7Department of Epidemiology, Italian National Cancer Institute Regina Elena, Rome, Italy
- Correspondence to: G H Guyatt guyatt{at}mcmaster.ca
Guideline panellists have differing opinions on whether resource use should influence decisions on individual patients. As medical care costs rise, resource use considerations become more compelling, but panellists may find dealing with such considerations challenging
In this last part of a series describing the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to making recommendations we will look at how guideline panellists and clinicians can incorporate matters related to the use of resources into recommendations and practice. Clinical recommendations inevitably involve judgments about the allocation of resources, judgments commonly referred to as costs. We will deal with some of the challenges of considering costs, explain reasons for focusing on resource use rather than costs, and discuss how to incorporate considerations of resource use into recommendations.
Cost as an outcome presents special challenges
In one sense, cost is just another potentially important outcome—like mortality, morbidity, and quality of life—associated with alternative ways of managing patients. In addition to these clinical outcomes, an intervention may increase costs or decrease costs. However, costs differ from other outcomes in several ways (box).1
In what way do costs differ from other health outcomes?
Patients receive health benefits and bear the burden of adverse health outcomes, but healthcare costs are typically shared by society as a whole (as represented by the government), employers, and patients
Attitudes differ as to whether costs should influence a doctor’s decision about treating individual patients
Healthcare costs may vary widely among and even within jurisdictions and quickly change over time
What societies can purchase if they forego use of healthcare resources (opportunity cost) varies widely between countries. A year’s supply of an expensive drug may pay a nurse’s salary in the US and 30 nurses’ salaries in China
When healthcare expenditures demand foregoing expenditures elsewhere, attitudes differ as to whether the health system, public expenditures, or society as a whole should bear the burden
Matters relating …
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012