https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12412/2557 2026-09-06T05:21:53Z 2026-09-06T05:21:53Z Mayer, Susanne Berger, Michael Peric, Natasâ Fischer, Claudia Konnopka, Alexander Brodzsky, Valentin Evers, Silvia M A A Hakkart van Roijen, Leona Ruiz Gutiérrez-Colosía, Mencía Salvador Carulla, Luis Park, A-La Hollingworth, William García Pérez, Lidia Simon, Judit https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12412/7392 2026-08-30T21:00:28Z 2024-08-08T00:00:00Z

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, Susanne; Berger, Michael; Peric, Natasâ; Fischer, Claudia; Konnopka, Alexander; Brodzsky, Valentin; Evers, Silvia M A A; Hakkart van Roijen, Leona; Ruiz Gutiérrez-Colosía, Mencía; Salvador Carulla, Luis; Park, A-La; Hollingworth, William; García Pérez, Lidia; Simon, Judit Background: Increasing healthcare costs require evidence-based resource use allocation for which assessing costs rigorously and comparably is crucial. Harmonized cross-country costing methods for evaluating interventions from a societal perspective are lacking. This study presents the development process and content of the service costing templates developed as part of the European project PECUNIA. Methods: The six developmental steps towards technological readiness of the templates included (1) a common conceptual costing framework and review of methodological costing issues, (2) harmonization strategy formulation, (3) proof-of-concept with expert feedback, (4) piloting, (5) validation, and (6) demonstration in six European countries. Results: The PECUNIA Reference Unit Cost (RUC) Templates for service costing are three new self-completion tools to be used with secondary or primary data for top-down micro-costing or top-down gross-costing approaches. Complementary data collection and unit cost aggregation/weighting templates are available. The applications leading to the final versions including (4) piloting through calculation of 15-unit costs, (5) validation within a Health Technology Assessment framework, and (6) RUC calculations mostly based on secondary data demonstrated the templates' general feasibility, with feedback for improved usability incorporated and a supplementary user guide developed. Conclusion: The validated PECUNIA RUC Templates for multi-sectoral and multi-country service costing allow for harmonized RUC development while incorporating flexibility and transparency in the choice of costing approaches, data sources and magnitude of remaining heterogeneity. The templates are expected to significantly improve the quality, comparability and availability of unit costs for economic evaluations, and promote the transferability of service cost information across Europe.

2024-08-08T00:00:00Z García Pérez, Lidia Linertová, Renata Hernández Yumar, Aránzazu Valcárcel Nazco, Cristina Perdomo Vielma, Jhoner Serrano Aguilar, Pedro Ruiz Gutiérrez-Colosía, Mencía Salvador Carulla, Luis Fernández Vega, Enrique Mayer, Susanne Simon, Judit https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12412/7391 2026-08-30T21:00:14Z 2024-12-18T00:00:00Z

Validation of the PECUNIA Reference Unit Costs templates in Spain: a useful tool for multi-national economic evaluations of health technologies García Pérez, Lidia; Linertová, Renata; Hernández Yumar, Aránzazu; Valcárcel Nazco, Cristina; Perdomo Vielma, Jhoner; Serrano Aguilar, Pedro; Ruiz Gutiérrez-Colosía, Mencía; Salvador Carulla, Luis; Fernández Vega, Enrique; Mayer, Susanne; Simon, Judit Background The PECUNIA Project was funded by the H2020 programme in which 10 partners from six countries participated. The aim was to develop standardized, harmonized and validated methods and tools to calculate costs in different sectors (such as health and social care, education among others), with the purpose of facilitating comparability of economic evaluations of health technologies across European countries. In this paper we report the first validation of the developed reference unit cost templates in Spain. Methods The evaluation of the PECUNIA Reference Unit Cost (RUC) Templates involved usability, transferability and feasibility assessment. Applicability tests were performed to estimate the cost of a selection of 15 resource items by means of the RUC templates in Spain and in four Spanish regions. External validation involved comparison with existing unit costs. Results It was possible to estimate the cost of five services (dental care and general practitioner in the Canary Islands, general practitioner in Spain [tariffs], health-related day care centre and education services provided in a special education school in the Basque Country), car vandalism as an example of potential health-related consequences, and informal care in Spain. The templates were feasible although data completeness depended on the type of data needed to estimate the costs. The templates are transferable across countries although comparability depends on the services available in each jurisdiction. Conclusions The PECUNIA RUC Templates are free and feasible tools to estimate comparable reference unit costs across countries. Although more validation exercises are needed, they seem useful tools to perform robust multi-national economic evaluations and increase the transferability of cost-effectiveness studies of health technologies in Europe. However, they cannot compensate for the lack of data across jurisdictions.

2024-12-18T00:00:00Z Lukersmith, Sue Salvador Carulla, Luis Woods, Cindy Niyonsenga, Theo Ruiz Gutiérrez-Colosía, Mencía Mohanty, Itismita García Alonso, Carlos Díaz Milanés, Diego Salinas Pérez, Jose Alberto Davey, Rachel Aryani, Amir https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12412/7390 2026-08-30T21:00:20Z 2025-04-01T00:00:00Z

An ecosystem approach to the evaluation and impact analysis of heterogeneous preventive and/or early interventions projects for veterans and first responders in seven countries Lukersmith, Sue; Salvador Carulla, Luis; Woods, Cindy; Niyonsenga, Theo; Ruiz Gutiérrez-Colosía, Mencía; Mohanty, Itismita; García Alonso, Carlos; Díaz Milanés, Diego; Salinas Pérez, Jose Alberto; Davey, Rachel; Aryani, Amir Background Cumulative exposure to critical incidents and life-threatening events leads to significant risk for Veterans and First Responders (VFRs) developing mental ill health and disorders. Philanthropic organisations, Movember and Distinguished Gentleman's Ride, funded 15 organisations to conduct early intervention Projects across seven countries. The Projects aim to improve the mental health and wellbeing of VFRs, their families/significant others. This paper describes the novel external evaluation and impact analysis methods to identify effective Projects having positive impact on VFRs and their families, provide return on investment and the overall Grant Program. Methods We take an ecosystem real-world approach, which recognises the context and aims to manage the complexities involved, uses a complexity and systems perspective, multi-step mixed methods and approaches. The evaluation is from three perspectives of: Projects; Project comparisons; Grant program. Embedded in the evaluation design are methods, knowledge sharing and organisational learning activities for all stakeholders. Data is collected by the Projects and evaluation team on input, throughputs, and output indicators. Analysis tools include Global Impact Analytics Framework, multi-layered statistical analysis, performance evaluation using an efficient decision support approach, Project and Grant program social return on investment, visual linking and data connection platform and assessment of gendered lens approaches. Implications The complexity and heterogeneity of Projects implemented in the real world continues to present significant evaluation challenges and limitations for project leads, stakeholders, researchers and evaluators. Our ecosystem approach and novel evaluation methodology will reduce the uncertainty around real world implementation, provide key learnings for project stakeholders and more broadly implementation researchers.

2025-04-01T00:00:00Z Lukersmith, Sue Woods, Cindy Salvador Carulla, Luis Niyonsenga, Theo Mohanty, Itismita Gutiérrez Colosía, Mencía R. Díaz Milanés, Diego García Alonso, Carlos Büsst, Cara https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12412/7389 2026-08-30T21:00:27Z 2025-08-01T00:00:00Z

A comparative evaluation of 23 projects on mental health and wellbeing for veterans and first responders Lukersmith, Sue; Woods, Cindy; Salvador Carulla, Luis; Niyonsenga, Theo; Mohanty, Itismita; Gutiérrez Colosía, Mencía R.; Díaz Milanés, Diego; García Alonso, Carlos; Büsst, Cara Background: Veterans and First Responders (VFR) are at risk of developing a range of mental health disorders because of cumulative exposure to critical incidents at work. Two Philanthropic organisations funded 15 organisations, which collectively implemented 23 highly heterogeneous and international early intervention mental ill-health and suicide prevention Projects. The aim was identify and collaborate with Projects with a multi-project evaluation. The evaluation examined multiple domains including intervention effectiveness but critically the implementation processes impacts for potential replication or scale up. This paper reports on the methods and evaluation results of implementation processes, impact analysis and sustainability. Method: The evaluation involved ecosystems and complex systems approaches using novel methods and tools. There was multiple preparatory evaluation steps including developing indices for complexity and context. The Global Impact Analytics Framework (GIAF) toolkit was used to evaluate the implementation processes. Methodological tools included qualitative analysis, descriptive statistics, GIAF ladders/scales and checklists (qualitative and quantitative data). Results: We provide the results on characteristics (organisational, Project and participants), GIAF process components (planning, pre-engagement, pre-readiness/readiness, dissemination/diffusion, usability/sustainability, adoption and uptake). All Project interventions were assessed as usable, adoptable and have capacity to be sustained, with financial resources. Uptake of the intervention was mostly high. Conclusion: Complex multi-project evaluation of highly heterogenous Projects implemented in the real world across different countries is possible and provides valuable information and learnings. The evaluation results establish benchmarks including Project pre-engagement with potential end-users, continuous, frequent collaboration between Project and evaluation teams, adequate contract duration for sufficient recruitment and intervention.

2025-08-01T00:00:00Z