2026-05-17T01:44:10Zhttps://repisalud.isciii.es/rest/oai/request

oai:repisalud.isciii.es:20.500.12105/262382025-12-18T12:56:25Zcom_20.500.12105_2052com_20.500.12105_2051col_20.500.12105_19612col_20.500.12105_19613

00925njm 22002777a 4500 dc Linertová, Renata author Hernández-Yumar, Aránzazu author Guirado-Fuentes, Carmen author Rodríguez-Díaz, Benjamín author Valcárcel-Nazco, Cristina author Imaz-Iglesia, Iñaki author Carmona, Montserrat author García-Pérez, Lidia author 2024-11-25 Background: Cost-effectiveness analyses of health technologies have become a part of the decision-making process in healthcare policies. Nevertheless, economic results are not always presented in comprehensible formats for non-technical audiences, such as the general population, healthcare professionals or decision-makers. The purpose of this study was to observe which formats best convey the key message of an economic evaluation, and which are best received by two different audiences. Methods: The summary of a hypothetical cost-effectiveness analysis was edited in different formats: infographic, plain language text and video-abstract for the general population; executive summary and policy brief for a specialized population, i.e. clinicians, clinical and non-clinical managers, or methodologists in health-technology assessment. Participants were randomly shown one of the formats, and data on objective and subjective comprehension, and perceived usefulness/acceptability were gathered by means of online questionnaires. Statistical differences between formats within each audience were analysed. Results: In the general population (N = 324), objective comprehension was statistically significantly better for infographic than for video-abstract (p = 0.005), and for plain text than for video-abstract (p = 0.024). There were no differences in subjective comprehension, but video-abstract was considered statistically significantly more useful to understand the information than plain text (p = 0.011). In the specialized population (N = 100), no statistically significant differences were observed for objective and subjective comprehension, although policy brief was perceived as statistically significantly more useful than executive summary (p = 0.005). Conclusions: A balance between effectivity of conveying the message and attractivity of the format needs to be sought, to facilitate non-technical audiences' understanding of economic data and, consequently, perceive decision-making processes as more transparent and legitimate. The infographic and policy brief could be robust ways to present economic data to the general public and specialized audience, respectively. Linertová R, Hernández-Yumar A, Guirado-Fuentes C, Rodríguez-Díaz B, Valcárcel-Nazco C, Imaz-Iglesia I, Carmona-Rodríguez M, García-Pérez L. How to present economic evaluations to non-technical audiences? Randomized trials with professionals and the general population. Arch Public Health. 2024 Nov 25;82(1):223. 10.1186/s13690-024-01453-8 2049-3258 0778-7367 Archives of public health = Archives belges de santé publique 39587699 https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/26238 Acceptability Comprehension Economic evaluation Executive summary Format Infographic Plain language summary Policy brief Usefulness Video-abstract How to present economic evaluations to non-technical audiences? Randomized trials with professionals and the general population