ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2020
Impact of Socioeconomic Differences on Distributional Cost-effectiveness Analysis.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodological heterogeneity and equity challenges of distributional cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare: a systematic review from 2017 to 2025.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Pooled it
- Challenges and Limitations in Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness and equity impact of complex primary care interventions for disadvantaged populations.BJGP open · 2026Article
- What Value Do Dutch Citizens Place on Health Interventions That Provide Greater Health Gains to Lower-Income Groups? A Discrete Choice Experiment.International journal of health policy and management · 2026Article
- Global trends and stratified analysis of aortic aneurysm mortality: insights from the GBD 2021 study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Valuing the Societal Impact of Medicines and Other Health Technologies: A User Guide to Current Best Practices.Forum for health economics & policy · 2024Article
- Productivity Loss Across Socioeconomic Groups Among Patients With Low Back Pain or Osteoarthritis: Estimates Using the Friction-Cost Approach in Norway.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Article
- Uncertainty Analysis in Intervention Impact on Health Inequality for Resource Allocation Decisions.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public health decision makers value interventions for their effects on overall health and health inequality. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) incorporates health inequality concerns into economic evaluation by accounting for how parameters, such as effectiveness, differ across population groups. A good understanding of how and when accounting for socioeconomic differences between groups affects the assessment of intervention impacts on overall health and health inequality could inform decision makers where DCEA would add most value. We interrogated 2 DCEA models of smoking and alcohol policies using first national level and then local authority level information on various socioeconomic differences in health and intervention use. Through a series of scenario analyses, we explored the impact of altering these differences on the DCEA results. When all available evidence on socioeconomic differences was incorporated, provision of a smoking cessation service was estimated to increase overall health and increase health inequality, while the screening and brief intervention for alcohol misuse was estimated to increase overall health and reduce inequality. Ignoring all or some socioeconomic differences resulted in minimal change to the estimated impact on overall health in both models; however, there were larger effects on the estimated impact on health inequality. Across the models, there were no clear patterns in how the extent and direction of socioeconomic differences in the inputs translated into the estimated impact on health inequality. Modifying use or coverage of either intervention so that each population group matched the highest level improved the impacts to a greater degree than modifying intervention effectiveness. When local level socioeconomic differences were considered, the magnitude of the impacts was altered; in some cases, the direction of impact on inequality was also altered.
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.