Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34098791›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2021

Uncertainty Analysis in Intervention Impact on Health Inequality for Resource Allocation Decisions.

Fan Yang, Ana Duarte, Simon Walker, Susan Griffin

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A Threshold Inequality Aversion Parameter Approach to Interpret Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Results.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fan YangCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, Yorkshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4689-265X
Ana DuarteCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, Yorkshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0528-4773
Simon WalkerCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, Yorkshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5750-3691
Susan GriffinCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, Yorkshire, UK.
University of York · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis, routinely used in health care to inform funding decisions, can be extended to consider impact on health inequality. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) incorporates socioeconomic differences in model parameters to capture how an intervention would affect both overall population health and differences in health between population groups. In DCEA, uncertainty analysis can consider the decision uncertainty around on both impacts (i.e., the probability that an intervention will increase overall health and the probability that it will reduce inequality). Using an illustrative example assessing smoking cessation interventions (2 active interventions and a "no-intervention" arm), we demonstrate how the uncertainty analysis could be conducted in DCEA to inform policy recommendations. We perform value of information (VOI) analysis and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to identify what additional evidence would add most value to the level of confidence in the DCEA results. The analyses were conducted for both national and local authority-level decisions to explore whether the conclusions about decision uncertainty based on the national-level estimates could inform local policy. For the comparisons between active interventions and "no intervention," there was no uncertainty that providing the smoking cessation intervention would increase overall health but increase inequality. However, there was uncertainty in the direction of both impacts when comparing between the 2 active interventions. VOI and ANCOVA show that uncertainty in socioeconomic differences in intervention effectiveness and uptake contributes most to the uncertainty in the DCEA results. This suggests potential value of collecting additional evidence on intervention-related inequalities for this evaluation. We also found different levels of decision uncertainty between settings, implying that different types and levels of additional evidence are required for decisions in different localities.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesResource AllocationCost-Benefit AnalysisData CollectionHumansUncertaintydistributional cost-effectiveness analysiseconomic evaluationhealth inequalitypublic healthuncertainty analysis

Identifiers

PMID34098791
PMCPMC8295967
OpenAlexW3167255592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.