ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2014
Cost-effectiveness of primary prevention of paediatric asthma: a decision-analytic model.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a conceptual model of childhood asthma to inform asthma prevention policies.BMJ open respiratory research · 2021Review
- Practical and Conceptual Considerations for the Primary Prevention of Asthma.Clinics in chest medicine · 2019Review
- Asthma.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany children stand to benefit from being asthma-free for life with primary (i.e., prenatally started) prevention addressing one environmental exposure in a unifaceted (UF) approach or at least two in a multifaceted (MF) approach. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of primary prevention programmes for Dutch children in a decision-analytic framework.
methodsA decision-analytic tree model analysing healthcare costs and asthma cases prevented was developed to compare usual care (UC) with two UF and three MF programmes on the primary prevention of asthma amongst children. Programmes were evaluated through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits. Decision and parameter uncertainty were subjected to value-of-information analyses.
resultsThe current UC and one of three MF programmes dominated the other alternatives. The MF programme was more costly but also more effective than UC at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <euro>8,209.20/additional asthma case prevented. The value of perfect information to reduce uncertainty was <euro>291.6M at its lowest. Most of the uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness threshold was attributable to the probability and cost estimates for low-risk children.
conclusionThis study supports the feasibility of a structured programme that simultaneously addresses exposure to house dust mites, pet dander, environmental tobacco, and breast-feeding as a cost-effective alternative to UC in the primary prevention of asthma amongst children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24096902What 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.