Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38741138›Full record

ReviewCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2024

An overview of the perspectives used in health economic evaluations.

Manit Sittimart, Waranya Rattanavipapong, Andrew J Mirelman, Trinh Manh Hung, Saudamini Dabak, Laura E Downey, Mark Jit, Yot Teerawattananon, Hugo C Turner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Economic Evaluations of Physical Exercise at Work: A Scoping Review.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 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

9 authors.

Manit SittimartHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Waranya RattanavipapongHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Andrew J MirelmanWorld Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Trinh Manh HungOxford University Clinical Research Unit (OUCRU), Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Saudamini DabakHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Laura E DowneyThe George Institute for Global Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Mark JitDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Yot TeerawattananonHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (HITAP), Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Hugo C TurnerMRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK. hugo.turner@imperial.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/R015600/1Medical Research Council MR/X020258/1National Institute for Health and Care Research HPRU-2019-NIHR200908UK Research and Innovation MR/X020258/1World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The term 'perspective' in the context of economic evaluations and costing studies in healthcare refers to the viewpoint that an analyst has adopted to define the types of costs and outcomes to consider in their studies. However, there are currently notable variations in terms of methodological recommendations, definitions, and applications of different perspectives, depending on the objective or intended user of the study. This can make it a complex area for stakeholders when interpreting these studies. Consequently, there is a need for a comprehensive overview regarding the different types of perspectives employed in such analyses, along with the corresponding implications of their use. This is particularly important, in the context of low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where practical guidelines may be less well-established and infrastructure for conducting economic evaluations may be more limited. This article addresses this gap by summarising the main types of perspectives commonly found in the literature to a broad audience (namely the patient, payer, health care providers, healthcare sector, health system, and societal perspectives), providing their most established definitions and outlining the corresponding implications of their uses in health economic studies, with examples particularly from LMIC settings. We then discuss important considerations when selecting the perspective and present key arguments to consider when deciding whether the societal perspective should be used. We conclude that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to what perspective should be used and the perspective chosen will be influenced by the context, policymakers'/stakeholders' viewpoints, resource/data availability, and intended use of the analysis. Moving forward, considering the ongoing issues regarding the variation in terminology and practice in this area, we urge that more standardised definitions of the different perspectives and the boundaries between them are further developed to support future studies and guidelines, as well as to improve the interpretation and comparison of health economic evidence.

Indexed as

DefinitionEconomic evaluationGlobal healthHealth economicsLMICPerspectiveSocietal

Identifiers

PMID38741138
PMCPMC11092188

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.