Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35897104›Full record

ReviewPopulation health metrics2022

Comparing health gains, costs and cost-effectiveness of 100s of interventions in Australia and New Zealand: an online interactive league table.

Natalie Carvalho, Tanara Vieira Sousa, Anja Mizdrak, Amanda Jones, Nick Wilson, Tony Blakely

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Population health metrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Natalie CarvalhoHealth Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Level 4, 207 Bouverie St, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia. natalie.carvalho@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-5599-2209
Tanara Vieira SousaMusic Therapy, Faculty of Fine Arts and Music, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Anja MizdrakBurden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity, and Cost-Effectiveness Programme (BODE3), Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Amanda JonesBurden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity, and Cost-Effectiveness Programme (BODE3), Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Nick WilsonBurden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity, and Cost-Effectiveness Programme (BODE3), Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Tony BlakelyPopulation Interventions Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study compares the health gains, costs, and cost-effectiveness of hundreds of Australian and New Zealand (NZ) health interventions conducted with comparable methods in an online interactive league table designed to inform policy.

methodsA literature review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed evaluations (2010 to 2018) arising from the Australia Cost-Effectiveness research and NZ Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Programmes, or using similar methodology, with: health gains quantified as health-adjusted life years (HALYs); net health system costs and/or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; time horizon of at least 10 years; and 3% to 5% discount rates.

resultsWe identified 384 evaluations that met the inclusion criteria, covering 14 intervention domains: alcohol; cancer; cannabis; communicable disease; cardiovascular disease; diabetes; diet; injury; mental illness; other non-communicable diseases; overweight and obesity; physical inactivity; salt; and tobacco. There were large variations in health gain across evaluations: 33.9% gained less than 0.1 HALYs per 1000 people in the total population over the remainder of their lifespan, through to 13.0% gaining > 10 HALYs per 1000 people. Over a third (38.8%) of evaluations were cost-saving.

conclusionsLeague tables of comparably conducted evaluations illustrate the large health gain (and cost) variations per capita between interventions, in addition to cost-effectiveness. Further work can test the utility of this league table with policy-makers and researchers.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsAustraliaCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansNew ZealandQuality-Adjusted Life YearsCost-effectivenessCostsHealth gainsLeague tablePriority-setting

Identifiers

PMID35897104
PMCPMC9327210

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.