Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32608317›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2020

Impact of Socioeconomic Differences on Distributional Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

Fan Yang, Colin Angus, Ana Duarte, Duncan Gillespie, Simon Walker, Susan Griffin

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Challenges and Limitations in Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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 · 2021
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fan YangCentre for Health Economics, University of York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4689-265X
Colin AngusSheffield Alcohol Research Group, Health Economics and Decision Science, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK.
Ana DuarteCentre for Health Economics, University of York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0528-4773
Duncan GillespieSheffield Alcohol Research Group, Health Economics and Decision Science, ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK.
Simon WalkerCentre for Health Economics, University of York, UK.
Susan GriffinCentre for Health Economics, University of York, UK.
University of York · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Health Status DisparitiesSocioeconomic FactorsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMarkov ChainsResearch Designdistributional cost-effectiveness analysiseconomic evaluationhealth inequalitypublic health

Identifiers

PMID32608317
PMCPMC7488816
OpenAlexW3038918751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.