ArticleBMJ global health2020
Practical metrics for establishing the health benefits of research to support research prioritisation.
Article in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Guiding Health Resource Allocation: Using Population Net Health Benefit to Align Disease Burden with Cost Effectiveness for Informed Decision Making.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
- Value-adaptive clinical trial designs for efficient delivery of publicly funded trials - a discussion of methods, case studies, opportunities and challenges.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Using economic analysis to inform health resource allocation: lessons from Malawi.Discover health systems · 2024Review
- Concomitant health benefits package design and research prioritisation: development of a new approach and an application to Malawi.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- A Review of Web-Based Tools for Value-of-Information Analysis.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe present practical metrics for estimating the expected health benefits of specific research proposals. These can be used by research funders, researchers and healthcare decision-makers within low-income and middle-income countries to support evidence-based research prioritisation.
methodsThe methods require three key assessments: (1) the current level of uncertainty around the endpoints the proposed study will measure; (2) how uncertainty impacts on the health benefits and costs of healthcare programmes and (3) the health opportunity costs imposed by programme costs. Research is valuable because it can improve health by informing the choice of which programmes should be implemented. We provide a Microsoft Excel tool to allow readers to generate estimates of the health benefits of research studies based on these three assessments. The tool can be populated using existing studies, existing cost-effectiveness models and expert opinion. Where such evidence is not available, the tool can quantify the value of research under different assumptions. Estimates of the health benefits of research can be considered alongside research costs, and the consequences of delaying implementation until research reports, to determine whether research is worthwhile. We illustrate the method using a case study of research on HIV self-testing programmes in Malawi. This analysis combines data from the literature with outputs from the HIV synthesis model.
resultsFor this case study, we found a costing study that could be completed and inform decision making within 1 year offered the highest health benefits (67 000 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted). Research on outcomes improved population health to a lesser extent (12 000 DALYs averted) and only if carried out alongside programme implementation.
conclusionOur work provides a method for estimating the health benefits of research in a practical and timely fashion. This can be used to support accountable use of research funds.
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.