Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34634892›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2021

Introduction to the Special Issue on "The World Health Organization Choosing Interventions That Are Cost-Effective (WHO-CHOICE) Update".

Melanie Y Bertram, Tessa Tan Torres Edejer

Open access · diamondAbstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

95 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Systematic review of model-based economic evaluations of heart valve implantations.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Is herpes zoster vaccination likely to be cost-effective in Canada?Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2014
    Pooled it
  6. Cost-utility of cochlear implantation in single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss: results of a randomized controlled trial.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Melanie Y BertramDepartment of Health Systems Governance and Financing, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7641-8943
Tessa Tan Torres EdejerDepartment of Health Systems Governance and Financing, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1068-332X
World Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The WHO-CHOICE (World Health Organization CHOosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective) approach is unique in the global health landscape, as it takes a "generalized" approach to cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) that can be seen as a quantitative assessment of current and future efficiency within a health system. CEA is a critical contribution to the process of priority setting and decision-making in healthcare, contributing to deliberative dialogue processes to select services to be funded. WHO-CHOICE provides regional level estimates of cost-effectiveness, along with tools to support country level analyses. This series provides an update to the methodological approach used in WHO-CHOICE and presents updated cost-effectiveness estimates for 479 interventions. Five papers are presented, the first focusing on methodological updates, followed by three results papers on maternal, newborn and child health; HIV, tuberculosis and malaria; and non-communicable diseases and mental health. The final paper presents a set of example universal health coverage (UHC) benefit packages selected through only a value for money lens, showing that all disease areas have interventions which can fall on the efficiency frontier. Critical for all countries is institutionalizing decision-making processes. A UHC benefit package should not be static, as the countries needs and ability to pay change over time. Decisions will need to be continually revised and new interventions added to health benefit packages. This is a vital component of progressive realization, as the package is expanded over time. Developing an institutionalized process ensures this can be done consistently, fairly, and transparently, to ensure an equitable path to UHC.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareUniversal Health InsuranceChildCost-Benefit AnalysisGlobal HealthHumansInfant, NewbornWorld Health OrganizationBenefit PackageCost-Effectiveness AnalysisEconomicsUniversal Health Coverage

Identifiers

PMID34634892
PMCPMC9278374
OpenAlexW3200234064

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.