ArticleJRSM short reports2011
Comparing the USA, UK and 17 Western countries' efficiency and effectiveness in reducing mortality.
Article in JRSM short reports, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determinants of Digital Health Literacy: International Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
- How US newspapers view the UK's NHS: a study in international lesson-drawing.Social theory & health : STH · 2022Article
- The financial performance of the health care industry: a global, regional and industry specific empirical investigation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018Article
- A Population-Based Cohort Study of Emergency Appendectomy Performed in England and New York State.World journal of surgery · 2017Article
- Cancer-related outcomes in kidney allograft recipients in England versus New York State: a comparative population-cohort analysis between 2003 and 2013.Cancer medicine · 2017Article
- UK and Twenty Comparable Countries GDP-Expenditure-on-Health 1980-2013: The Historic and Continued Low Priority of UK Health-Related Expenditure.International journal of health policy and management · 2016Article
- Rate of improvement of CF life expectancy exceeds that of general population--observational death registration study.Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society · 2014Observational
- An analysis of National Health Service Trust websites on the occupational backgrounds of 'Non-Executive Directors' on England's Acute Trusts.JRSM open · 2014Article
- The missing link--the role of primary care in global health.Global health action · 2014Article
- Physicians' perceptions of quality of care, professional autonomy, and job satisfaction in Canada, Norway, and the United States.BMC health services research · 2013Article
- Opening the oyster: the 2010-11 NHS reforms in England.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo test the hypothesis that the USA healthcare system was superior to the NHS and 17 other Western countries in reducing feasible mortality rates over the period 1979-2005.
designEconomic inputs into healthcare, GDP health expenditure (GDPHE) were compared with clinical outputs, i.e. total 'adult' (15-74 years) and 'older' (55-74 years) mortality rates based upon three-year average mortality rates for 1979-81 vs. 2003-2005. A cost-effective ratio was calculated by dividing average GDPHE into reduced mortality rates over the period.
settingNineteen Western countries' mortality rates compared between 1979-2005.
participantsMortality of people by age and gender.
main outcome measuresA cost-effective ratio to measure efficiency and effectiveness of healthcare systems in reducing mortality rates. Chi-square tested any differences between the USA, UK and other Western countries.
resultsINPUT: The USA had the highest current and average GDPHE; the UK was 10th highest but joint 16th overall, still below the Western countries' average. Output: Every country's mortality rate fell substantially; but 15 countries reduced their mortality rates significantly more than the US, while UK 'adult' and 'older' mortality rates fell significantly more than 12 other countries. Cost-effectiveness: The USA GDPHE: mortality rate ratio was 1:205 for 'adults' and 1:515 for 'older' people, 16 Western countries having bigger ratios than the US; the UK had second greatest ratios at 1:593 and 1:1595, respectively. The UK ratios were >20% larger than 14 other countries.
conclusionsIn cost-effective terms, i.e. economic input versus clinical output, the USA healthcare system was one of the least cost-effective in reducing mortality rates whereas the UK was one of the most cost-effective over the period.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.