ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2024
Assessing Global Evidence on Cost-Effectiveness to Inform Development of Pakistan's Essential Package of Health Services.
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Practical Framework for Understanding Cost-Effectiveness and Decision Risk in Health Benefits Package Design.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Feasibility and Policy Implications of a Pragmatically Adapted Pediatric-Inspired Induction Regimen for Adults with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in a Resource-Restricted Setting: A Prospective Observational Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of cancer interventions in Rwanda: literature review and expert elicitation for health benefits package design.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Designing the Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Pakistan's Progress on Universal Health Coverage: Lessons Learned in Priority Setting and Challenges Ahead in Reinforcing Primary Healthcare.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- Addressing the UHC Challenge Using the Disease Control Priorities 3 Approach: Lessons Learned and an Overview of the Pakistan Experience.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
- The Use of Evidence to Design an Essential Package of Health Services in Pakistan: A Review and Analysis of Prioritisation Decisions at Different Stages of the Appraisal Process.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Review
- Costing Interventions for Developing an Essential Package of Health Services: Application of a Rapid Method and Results From Pakistan.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCountries designing a health benefit package (HBP) to support progress towards universal health coverage (UHC) require robust cost-effectiveness evidence. This paper reports on Pakistan's approach to assessing the applicability of global cost-effectiveness evidence to country context as part of a HBP design process.
methodsA seven-step process was developed and implemented with Disease Control Priority 3 (DCP3) project partners to assess the applicability of global incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to Pakistan. First, the scope of the interventions to be assessed was defined and an independent, interdisciplinary team was formed. Second, the team familiarized itself with intervention descriptions. Third, the team identified studies from the Tufts Medical School Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GH-CEA) registry. Fourth, the team applied specific knock-out criteria to match identified studies to local intervention descriptions. Matches were then cross-checked across reviewers and further selection was made where there were multiple ICER matches. Sixth, a quality scoring system was applied to ICER values. Finally, a database was created containing all the ICER results with a justification for each decision, which was made available to decision-makers during HBP deliberation.
resultsWe found that less than 50% of the interventions in DCP3 could be supported with evidence of cost-effectiveness applicable to the country context. Out of 78 ICERs identified as applicable to Pakistan from the Tufts GH-CEA registry, only 20 ICERs were exact matches of the DCP3 Pakistan intervention descriptions and 58 were partial matches.
conclusionThis paper presents the first attempt globally to use the main public GH-CEA database to estimate cost-effectiveness in the context of HBPs at a country level. This approach is a useful learning for all countries trying to develop essential packages informed by the global database on ICERs, and it will support the design of future evidence and further development of methods.
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.