ReviewValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research2019
Economic Evaluation for Health Investments En Route to Universal Health Coverage: Cost-Benefit Analysis or Cost-Effectiveness Analysis?
Review in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Economic evaluations of health system strengthening activities in low-income and middle-income country settings: a methodological systematic review.BMJ global health · 2022Pooled it
- Developing a quality index and an evaluation indicator system for the National Food Safety Standard Framework in China.Journal of public health policy · 2026Article
- Cost-benefit analysis of interventions for dementia: a scoping review.Innovation in aging · 2025Review
- From court to community: a cost-benefit evaluation of a community sports programme for Arab women in Israel's multiethnic context.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Article
- Appraising eHealth Investment for Africa: Scoping Review and Development of a Framework.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Alternatives to the quality-adjusted life year: How well do they address common criticisms?Health services research · 2023Article
- Integrating Real-World Evidence in Economic Evaluation of Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation in a Developing Country.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2023Article
- A Methodological Framework for Economic Evaluation of Operational Response to Vector-Borne Diseases Based on Early Warning Systems.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2023Article
- Health technology assessment implementation in WHO South-East Asia Region: a realist review protocol.Wellcome open research · 2023Article
- Using Economic Evaluation to Inform Responses to the Opioid Epidemic in the United States: Challenges and Suggestions for Future Research.Substance use & misuse · 2022Article
- The 2019 Conference on Health and Active Transportation: Research Needs and Opportunities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Organising Research and Development for evidence-informed health care: some universal characteristics and a case study from the UK.Health economics, policy, and law · 2021Review
- An Introduction to the Main Types of Economic Evaluations Used for Informing Priority Setting and Resource Allocation in Healthcare: Key Features, Uses, and Limitations.Frontiers in public health · 2021Review
- Evidence-Based Decision Making 3: Health Technology Assessment.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Improving access to community-based pulmonary rehabilitation: 3R protocol for real-world settings with cost-benefit analysis.BMC public health · 2019Article
- EHealth Investment Appraisal in Africa: A Scoping Review.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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
backgroundIt is an unresolved issue as to whether cost-benefit analysis (CBA) or cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is the preferable analytical toolkit for use in health technology assessment (HTA). The distinction between the two and an expressed preference for CEA go back at least to 1980 in the USA and, most recently, a Harvard-based group has been reappraising the case for CBA.
objectivesThis article seeks to answer the question: would the use of cost-benefit analysis rather than the more usual cost-effectiveness analysis be an improvement, specifically in appraising health and health-related investments in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) as they transition to Universal Health Coverage?. METHODS/
resultsA selective literature review charts the welfare economics (welfarism and extra-welfarism) roots of both approaches. The principal distinguishing feature of the two is the monetary valuation of health outcomes under CBA compared with the use of health constructs such as the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) or Disability-Adjusted Life-Year (DALY) under CEA. The former enables direct comparison of the outcomes of health investments with the monetized outcomes of other investments, while the CEA approach facilitates direct comparisons with other health investments. Seven challenges in using CBA in developing countries arise, including ethical issues in outcome valuation, practical challenges in the acquisition of data, intrinsic bias in data on values, and some of the practical issues of implementation for either CBA or CEA.
conclusionsWe conclude with a list of nine issues that both CBA and CEA need to settle if they are to be useful in LMICs. For the immediate future we judge CBA to be the less practicable.
Indexed as
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.