Instructions for Authors

I.

Editorial Scope

About the Journal

As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, healthcare decision makers, and policy makers to apply health economics and outcomes research into healthcare decisions. The goal of Value in Health is to advance scholarly and public dialogue about the assessment of value in health and healthcare.

Increasingly, healthcare decision makers and policy makers are seeking outcomes research information (ie, comparative treatment effectiveness, economic costs and benefits, and patient-reported outcomes) that can guide them in healthcare resource allocation and in evaluating alternative treatments and health services interventions. Value in Health publishes original research articles in the areas of economic evaluation (including drugs and other medical technologies), outcomes research (“real-world” treatment effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes research), and conceptual, methodological, and health policy articles. All research papers accepted for publication must be conducted in a rigorous manner and must reflect valid and reliable theory and methods. Empirical analyses and conceptual models must reflect ethical research practices and provide valuable information for healthcare decision makers and the research community as a whole.

The journal uses the peer review process to ensure rigorous and transparent use of statistical methods. Value in Health also requires that papers reporting modeling results include sensitivity analysis of key and influential model parameters.

ISPOR Journals: Where to Publish?

In 2012, ISPOR launched a companion journal to Value in Health called Value in Health Regional Issues. The mission of Value in Health Regional Issues is to provide a forum for the advancement and dissemination of research in health economics and the health-related outcomes of populations in 3 specific regions: Asia, Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe, Western Asia, and Africa.

A major objective of the new journal was to provide an additional publication outlet for researchers in these regions. However, Value in Health Regional Issues has grown in stature over the years and is now a MEDLINE-indexed journal. Therefore, the distinction between Value in Health and Value in Health Regional Issues is less clear than initially intended. Thus, potential authors from the regions covered by Value in Health Regional Issues may be wondering which journal is most appropriate for submission of their papers.

The main distinction between the two journals is not in the methodological quality of papers they publish, but rather in their focus. Given the international readership of Value in Health, papers submitted to this journal should have relevance beyond the country where the research was conducted. The clearest example of this would be a paper discussing a new methodological approach that could be applied in a number of settings, or the ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force Reports, which provide statements on current international methodological standards.

For empirical papers, Value in Health might publish some of the first results of the cost-effectiveness or health outcomes gained from a new health technology, since these may be helpful for countries that have not yet evaluated the technology concerned. It might also publish papers exploring the impact of an innovative health policy that may be capable of application in other countries.

However, Value in Health is less interested in in publishing country applications of economic models that have been published previously, or country adaptations of quality-of-life instruments, unless there are some broader insights from these adaptations.

On the other hand, Value in Health Regional Issues may have higher interest in these papers if (1) they meet the journal’s methodological standards and (2) they provide useful estimates for the region concerned.

Therefore, when considering whether to submit to Value in Health or Value in Health Regional Issues, the main issue for an author to consider is: Does my paper offer important insights beyond the country where the research was conducted?

Mission Statement

The mission of Value in Health is to set a high scientific standard using editorial review and peer review, not just to screen articles, but also to foster communication within the research community—facilitating knowledge-sharing between the outcomes research community and healthcare decision makers. As such, the editors of Value in Health aim to enhance the validity, reliability, and transparency of health economics and outcomes research and its real-world applicability.

Editorial Scope

In keeping with its broad mission, Value in Health welcomes papers that make substantial contributions to the existing literature by providing new evidence or ideas that extend the current knowledge base. As such, manuscripts should describe the unique contribution of the article and place the current paper in context with the existing literature. Value in Health does not consider papers reporting data series or data sets that do not include appropriate statistical analyses.

Appropriate valuation of healthcare interventions requires multidisciplinary perspectives and assessment of economic and outcomes data. Therefore, the journal welcomes theoretical and empirical articles about health effects and health costs that strive to improve the quality and reliability of outcome evaluations of healthcare intervention—contributed not only by economists, but also by behavioral psychologists, sociologists, clinicians, ethicists, and others.

Value in Health is particularly interested in receiving articles in the following areas:

Economic Evaluations

Economic evaluations that assess the costs and consequences of alternative healthcare interventions are of interest, including those involving drugs, devices, procedures, and systems of organization of healthcare. However, studies that only consider costs or the economic burden of disease are less likely to be accepted unless they address important methodological or policy issues.

Patient-Reported Outcomes

Many challenging empirical and theoretical problems remain in the concept and measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PRO), including health-related quality of life (QoL). Articles presenting research on the development of measures for PRO/QoL instruments, especially innovative ways of assessing content or construct validity, are invited. (See also “Country Adaptations” below.)

Preference-Based Assessments

Research on the development and use of various types of instruments to express the value of healthcare, including health “utility” assessments, discrete choice experiments/conjoint analyses, and assessments of individuals’ willingness to pay is encouraged. (See also “Country Adaptations” below.)

Comparative-Effectiveness Research/Health Technology Assessment

Although it is difficult to be precise about the nature of the articles in this category (see Luce et al, The Milbank Quarterly. 2010;88:256-276 for one taxonomy), Value in Health welcomes articles presenting information that can assist those deciding on the efficient and equitable allocation of healthcare resources by examining the relative value of interventions. In some cases, relative value may be addressed by considering only clinical outcomes, although normally it will involve considering PRO/QoL measures and impacts on resource utilization. Articles in this category can report the results of primary research or present findings from meta analyses or systematic reviews of the existing literature.

Health Policy Analyses

The journal invites articles that discuss various aspects of health policy, in particular those concerned with pricing and reimbursement issues, the adoption of new health technologies, or policies to encourage “value-based” decision making. However, the journal’s scope does not include papers dealing with more general issues of healthcare financing, health insurance, and cost-containment measures.

Policy on the Publication of Research Previously Available in the Public Domain

In common with most peer-reviewed journals, Value in Health is keen to publish original material that will be highly impactful. However, Value in Health editors are aware that, within the field of health services research and policy, some material may have been available previously as a working paper, research paper, or through publication on the host institution’s website.

Value in Health does not have a firm policy to reject material that has been available previously in the public domain.

• (i)

  Does the paper summarize the material from a much longer report that makes it more accessible to the readership of Value in Health and more likely to impact decision making because of the peer-reviewed publication?

• (ii)

  Does the paper add to the methods and/or data published in the original report, either by reporting more data or by raising different discussion points?

• (iii)

  In the case of a working paper or research paper, is the version submitted for peer review substantively different from the publicly posted draft version, and will the organization that published the draft paper remove the draft version and redirect individuals to the final published paper in Value in Health?

Rather, the following tests will be applied to any paper submitted to Value in Health:

If one or more of the above criteria are met, the paper may be considered for publication in Value in Health through our normal peer-review process. If Value in Health publishes the paper, a link from the original posting’s website should refer readers to the Value in Health publication.

Some authors are posting their papers as “preprints,” so that they can be made available in the public domain while they are being peer-reviewed. Most publishers are aware of this process but delegate decisions on publication to each individual journal. There are currently different views among journal editors on whether posting papers as preprints constitutes prior publication. Therefore, if an author is considering posting their paper on a preprint server, we strongly encourage them to contact the journal in advance.

Country Adaptations

Value in Health recognizes that it is sometimes instructive to publish the results of health economics and outcomes research studies relating to more than one country. In the case of economic evaluations, this might involve using a model that was previously developed for an evaluation of a given intervention in another country. In the case of outcomes research, this might involve the validation of a quality-of-life instrument in another language or different jurisdiction. The journal is willing to consider such papers for publication, but only if they make a substantial independent contribution to the literature. Those submitting country adaptations should indicate (in the paper and their cover letter) what they consider the substantial independent contribution to be. It will not be sufficient to state that “results for intervention X have not previously been reported for country Y.”

Following Good Practices for Outcomes Research

Value in Health publishes the reports on “Good Practices for Outcomes Research” developed by task forces appointed by the ISPOR Board of Directors. There are now more than 65 task force reports, which can be accessed via the following link ( http://www.ispor.org/workpaper/practices_index.asp ). These task force reports provide guidance for best practices across a variety of research areas, including methods related to articles relevant to the scope of Value in Health. These include comparative-effectiveness research, economic evaluation, observational studies, patient-reported outcomes, modelling, preference-based methods, and the use of outcomes research in decision making.

Although Value in Health does not prescribe any particular research methods, the editors strongly encourage authors to review the ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research reports relating to the methods or topics covered by their paper. The reports are written by thought leaders in the various fields of research and are extensively peer reviewed by members of the Society.

1

• Husereau D.
• Drummond M.
• Petrou S.
• et al.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.

2

• Eddy D.M.
• Hollingworth W.
• Caro J.J.
• et al.

Model Transparency and Validation: A Report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7.

3

• Moher D.
• Liberati A.
• Tetzlaff J.
• Altman D.G.

the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

4

• Schulz K.F.
• Altman D.G.
• Moher D.
• for the CONSORT Group

CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

Some of the task force reports address the reporting of research studies. Irrespective of the methods used in a particular study, Value in Health believes that adherence to accepted standards of reporting is important. Therefore, if your paper reports an economic evaluation, we recommend that you follow the CHEERSguidelines. If your analysis is based on a model, we recommend that you follow the guidance in the ISPOR-SMDM Task Forcereport on model transparency and validation. Other reporting standards of particular relevance to authors of papers in Value in Health are the PRISMA guidelinesfor the reporting of systematic reviews and the CONSORT guidelinesfor reporting the results of studies assessing health-related quality of life/patient-reported outcomes.

Article Categories

Tabled
1

Article TypeDescriptionWord Limit∗

The manuscript word limit excludes the abstract, references, figure legends, tables, and appendices/supplemental materials.

Limit No.
Figures/Tables

The maximum number of graphic elements reflects a combined total of figures (including figure parts) and tables.

Original ResearchThese papers report the findings of original research and may contain the results of empirical analysis, instrument development, or policy analysis.40006Methodological ArticlesAs the name implies, these papers deal with methodological issues in any of the topic areas within the scope of the journal. They can include data if these are required to illustrate the importance of particular methodological points.35006Policy PerspectivesThese papers discuss important health policy topics within the scope of the journal. They may reflect conceptual pieces or reviews of the literature.30004Systematic Literature ReviewsThese papers review empirical studies consistent with the methods of systematic review proposed by the Cochrane Collaboration.5

• Chalmers I.

The Cochrane Collaboration: Preparing, Maintaining, and Disseminating Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Health Care.

40006Brief ReportsThese are empirical analyses with a more narrow focus than original research articles and generally a single aim.25002CommentariesThese brief papers present a particular perspective on a timely or controversial topic. They do not necessarily need to be based on original research or reviews of the literature and can be based on opinion, providing the points made are transparent and well-argued. While commentaries are typically invited contributions, the editors will consider unsolicited submissions.20001EditorialsEditorials are commissioned by the editorial team and often accompany a paper published in the same issue.12001Letters to the EditorCustomarily, letters refer to content published in the journal within the past 6 months. Authors of the article to which the letter refers will be given the opportunity to reply, and if a response is issued, both the letter and the reply will be published in the same issue of the journal.15001

Value in Health considers articles in the following categories, which comprise the sections of the journal. When submitting a manuscript through our online system, authors should indicate the appropriate category under which they wish their paper to be considered. All submissions will be considered for peer review prior to publication, with the exception of Editorials, Commentaries, and Letters to the Editor, which will be reviewed internally by the editors.