ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2021
Allocating Public Spending Efficiently: Is There a Need for a Better Mechanism to Inform Decisions in the UK and Elsewhere?
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multi-dimensional Framework of Valued Output for Primary Care in England.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024Review
- Resource allocation in public sector programmes: does the value of a life differ between governmental departments?Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Siltuximab for Australian Public Investment in the Rare Condition Idiopathic Multicentric Castleman Disease.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Article
- Self-organization in Slovenian public spending.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Article
- A cost-benefit analysis framework for preventive health interventions to aid decision-making in Australian governments.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Economic Evaluations of Speech and Language Therapy Interventions: A Scoping Review.International journal of language & communication disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the UK few if any regular processes explicitly address comparisons of value for money between spending in different government departments, despite the existence of mechanisms that could in principle achieve that. This leaves a very important gap in evidence and means that decisions about public spending allocations are likely to miss opportunities to improve social welfare from existing budgets. Greater attention to the development of methods and evidence to better inform the allocation of public sector spending between departments is therefore urgently needed. We identify a number of possible approaches to this-some of which are being used in different countries-and highlight their strengths and weaknesses. We propose a new, pragmatic approach that incorporates a generic descriptive system to measure the disparate outcomes produced by public sector activities in a commensurate manner. Discrete-choice experiments could be used to generate evidence of the relative importance placed on different aspects of public sector outcomes by members of the general public. The proposed approach would produce evidence on value for money across departments, and the generation of evidence on public preferences to support that.
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.