ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2021
More than cost-effectiveness? Applying a second-stage filter to improve policy decision making.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global research on patient involvement in health technology assessment: a bibliometric analysis.Global health research and policy · 2025Article
- Systematic review of economic evaluations for internet- and mobile-based interventions for mental health problems.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Article
- More than cost-effectiveness? Applying a second-stage filter to improve policy decision making.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApart from cost-effectiveness, considerations like equity and acceptability may affect health-care priority setting. Preferably, priority setting combines evidence evaluation with an appraisal procedure, to elicit and weigh these considerations.
objectiveTo demonstrate a structured approach for eliciting and evaluating a broad range of assessment criteria, including key stakeholders' values, aiming to support decision makers in priority setting.
methodsFor a set of cost-effective substitute interventions for depression care, the appraisal criteria were adopted from the Australian Assessing Cost-Effectiveness initiative. All substitute interventions were assessed in an appraisal, using focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews conducted among key stakeholders.
resultsAppraisal of the substitute cost-effective interventions yielded an overview of considerations and an overall recommendation for decision makers. Two out of the thirteen pairs were deemed acceptable and realistic, that is investment in therapist-guided and Internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy instead of cognitive behavioural therapy in mild depression, and investment in combination therapy rather than individual psychotherapy in severe depression. In the remaining substitution pairs, substantive issues affected acceptability. The key issues identified were as follows: workforce capacity, lack of stakeholder support and the need for change in clinicians' attitude.
conclusionsSystematic identification of stakeholders' considerations allows decision makers to prioritize among cost-effective policy options. Moreover, this approach entails an explicit and transparent priority-setting procedure and provides insights into the intended and unintended consequences of using a certain health technology. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients were involved in the conduct of the study for instance, by sharing their values regarding considerations relevant for priority setting.
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.