Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29100609›Full record

SynthesisHealth policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2017

Economic evaluations of alcohol prevention interventions: Is the evidence sufficient? A review of methodological challenges.

Sarah R Hill, Luke Vale, David Hunter, Emily Henderson, Yemi Oluboyede

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah R HillInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon-Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK; Fuse, UKCRC Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle upon-Tyne, UK. Electronic address: s.r.hill2@newcastle.ac.uk.
Luke ValeInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon-Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK; Fuse, UKCRC Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle upon-Tyne, UK. Electronic address: luke.vale@newcastle.ac.uk.
David HunterCentre for Public Policy and Health, School of Medicine, Pharmacy & Health, Wolfson Research Institute, Durham University, Queen's Campus, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK; Fuse, UKCRC Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle upon-Tyne, UK. Electronic address: david.hunter2@newcastle.ac.uk.
Emily HendersonCentre for Public Policy and Health, School of Medicine, Pharmacy & Health, Wolfson Research Institute, Durham University, Queen's Campus, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK; Fuse, UKCRC Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle upon-Tyne, UK. Electronic address: e.j.henderson@durham.ac.uk.
Yemi OluboyedeInstitute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clark Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon-Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK; Fuse, UKCRC Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle upon-Tyne, UK. Electronic address: yemi.oluboyede@newcastle.ac.uk.
United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Public health interventions have unique characteristics compared to health technologies, which present additional challenges for economic evaluation (EE). High quality EEs that are able to address the particular methodological challenges are important for public health decision-makers. In England, they are even more pertinent given the transition of public health responsibilities in 2013 from the National Health Service to local government authorities where new agents are shaping policy decisions. Addressing alcohol misuse is a globally prioritised public health issue. This article provides a systematic review of EE and priority-setting studies for interventions to prevent and reduce alcohol misuse published internationally over the past decade (2006-2016). This review appraises the EE and priority-setting evidence to establish whether it is sufficient to meet the informational needs of public health decision-makers. 619 studies were identified via database searches. 7 additional studies were identified via hand searching journals, grey literature and reference lists. 27 met inclusion criteria. Methods identified included cost-utility analysis (18), cost-effectiveness analysis (6), cost-benefit analysis (CBA) (1), cost-consequence analysis (CCA) (1) and return-on-investment (1). The review identified a lack of consideration of methodological challenges associated with evaluating public health interventions and limited use of methods such as CBA and CCA which have been recommended as potentially useful for EE in public health. No studies using other specific priority-setting tools were identified.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPublic HealthAlcohol interventionsEconomic evaluationHealth economicsMethodological challengesPriority-settingPublic health

Identifiers

PMID29100609
PMCPMC5710990
OpenAlexW2765098206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.