Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34923970›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2021

A cost-benefit analysis framework for preventive health interventions to aid decision-making in Australian governments.

Jaithri Ananthapavan, Marj Moodie, Andrew Milat, Lennert Veerman, Elizabeth Whittaker, Rob Carter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Forecasting of Future Medical Care Expenditure in Japan Using a System Dynamics Model.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    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

6 authors.

Jaithri AnanthapavanDeakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. jaithri.ananthapavan@deakin.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5957-6931
Marj MoodieDeakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Andrew MilatNSW Ministry of Health, New South Wales, Australia.
Lennert VeermanSchool of Medicine, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Elizabeth WhittakerNSW Ministry of Health, New South Wales, Australia.
Rob CarterDeakin Health Economics, School of Health and Social Development, Institute for Health Transformation, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1152968
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAustralian governments are increasingly mandating the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to inform the efficient allocation of government resources. CBA is likely to be useful when evaluating preventive health interventions that are often cross-sectoral in nature and require Cabinet approval prior to implementation. This study outlines a CBA framework for the evaluation of preventive health interventions that balances the need for consistency with other agency guidelines whilst adhering to guidelines and conventions for health economic evaluations.

methodsWe analysed CBA and other evaluation guidance documents published by Australian federal and New South Wales (NSW) government departments. Data extraction compared the recommendations made by different agencies and the impact on the analysis of preventive health interventions. The framework specifies a reference case and sensitivity analyses based on the following considerations: (1) applied economic evaluation theory; (2) consistency between CBA across different government departments; (3) the ease of moving from a CBA to a more conventional cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analysis framework often used for health interventions; (4) the practicalities of application; and (5) the needs of end users being both Cabinet decision-makers and health policy-makers.

resultsNine documents provided CBA or relevant economic evaluation guidance. There were differences in terminology and areas of agreement and disagreement between the guidelines. Disagreement between guidelines involved (1) the community included in the societal perspective; (2) the number of options that should be appraised in ex ante analyses; (3) the appropriate time horizon for interventions with longer economic lives; (4) the theoretical basis and value of the discount rate; (5) parameter values for variables such as the value of a statistical life; and (6) the summary measure for decision-making.

conclusionsThis paper addresses some of the methodological challenges that have hindered the use of CBA in prevention by outlining a framework that is consistent with treasury department guidelines whilst considering the unique features of prevention policies. The effective use and implementation of a preventive health CBA framework is likely to require considerable investment of time and resources from state and federal government departments of health and treasury but has the potential to improve decision-making related to preventive health policies and programmes.

Indexed as

GovernmentHealth PolicyAustraliaCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPreventive Health ServicesCost–benefit analysisDecision-makingHealth policyPreventive health

Identifiers

PMID34923970
PMCPMC8684630

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.