» Articles » PMID: 36622541

Development of an Instrument for the Assessment of Health-Related Multi-sectoral Resource Use in Europe: The PECUNIA RUM

Abstract

Background: Measuring objective resource-use quantities is important for generating valid cost estimates in economic evaluations. In the absence of acknowledged guidelines, measurement methods are often chosen based on practicality rather than methodological evidence. Furthermore, few resource-use measurement (RUM) instruments focus on the measurement of resource use in multiple societal sectors and their development process is rarely described. Thorn and colleagues proposed a stepwise approach to the development of RUM instruments, which has been used for developing cost questionnaires for specific trials. However, it remains unclear how this approach can be translated into practice and whether it is applicable to the development of generic self-reported RUM instruments and instruments measuring resource use in multiple sectors. This study provides a detailed description of the practical application of this stepwise approach to the development of a multi-sectoral RUM instrument developed within the ProgrammE in Costing, resource use measurement and outcome valuation for Use in multi-sectoral National and International health economic evaluAtions (PECUNIA) project.

Methods: For the development of the PECUNIA RUM, the methodological approach was based on best practice guidelines. The process included six steps, including the definition of the instrument attributes, identification of cost-driving elements in each sector, review of methodological literature and development of a harmonized cross-sectorial approach, development of questionnaire modules and their subsequent harmonization.

Results: The selected development approach was, overall, applicable to the development of the PECUNIA RUM. However, due to the complexity of the development of a multi-sectoral RUM instrument, additional steps such as establishing a uniform methodological basis, harmonization of questionnaire modules and involvement of a broader range of stakeholders (healthcare professionals, sector-specific experts, health economists) were needed.

Conclusion: This is the first study that transparently describes the development process of a generic multi-sectoral RUM instrument in health economics and provides insights into the methodological aspects and overall validity of its development process.

Citing Articles

Family-focused intervention programme to foster adolescent mental health and well-being: protocol for a multicountry cluster randomised factorial trial (FLOURISH Phase 2).

Piolanti A, Mueller J, Waller F, Heinrichs N, Simon J, Shenderovich Y BMJ Open. 2025; 15(2):e094085.

PMID: 39920046 PMC: 11808879. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-094085.


The Development of a New Approach for the Harmonized Multi-Sectoral and Multi-Country Cost Valuation of Services: The PECUNIA Reference Unit Cost (RUC) Templates.

Mayer S, Berger M, Peric N, Fischer C, Konnopka A, Brodszky V Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2024; 22(6):783-796.

PMID: 39115752 PMC: 11470907. DOI: 10.1007/s40258-024-00905-0.


Clarifying terminology and definitions in education services for mental health users: A disambiguation study.

Pokhilenko I, Gutierrez-Colosia M, Janssen L, Evers S, Paulus A, Drost R PLoS One. 2024; 19(7):e0306539.

PMID: 38959274 PMC: 11221696. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306539.


Developing a Program Costs Checklist of Digital Health Interventions: A Scoping Review and Empirical Case Study.

Khan Z, Kidholm K, Pedersen S, Haga S, Drozd F, Sundrehagen T Pharmacoeconomics. 2024; 42(6):663-678.

PMID: 38530596 PMC: 11126496. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01366-y.


Identification and prioritisation of items for a draft participant-reported questionnaire to measure use of social care, informal care, aids and adaptations.

Garfield K, Thornton G, Husbands S, Cameron A, Hollingworth W, Noble S Pharmacoecon Open. 2024; 8(3):431-443.

PMID: 38453803 PMC: 11058127. DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00479-6.


References
1.
Noben C, de Rijk A, Nijhuis F, Kottner J, Evers S . The exchangeability of self-reports and administrative health care resource use measurements: assessement of the methodological reporting quality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 74:93-106.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.09.019. View

2.
Thorn J, Coast J, Cohen D, Hollingworth W, Knapp M, Noble S . Resource-use measurement based on patient recall: issues and challenges for economic evaluation. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013; 11(3):155-61. DOI: 10.1007/s40258-013-0022-4. View

3.
Leggett L, Khadaroo R, Holroyd-Leduc J, Lorenzetti D, Hanson H, Wagg A . Measuring Resource Utilization: A Systematic Review of Validated Self-Reported Questionnaires. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016; 95(10):e2759. PMC: 4998854. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002759. View

4.
Ridyard C, Hughes D . Methods for the collection of resource use data within clinical trials: a systematic review of studies funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment program. Value Health. 2010; 13(8):867-72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00788.x. View

5.
Byford S, Leese M, Knapp M, Seivewright H, Cameron S, Jones V . Comparison of alternative methods of collection of service use data for the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Econ. 2006; 16(5):531-6. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1175. View