ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2024
The Development of a New Approach for the Harmonized Multi-Sectoral and Multi-Country Cost Valuation of Services: The PECUNIA Reference Unit Cost (RUC) Templates.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Structuring Digital Mental Health Care Navigation: Co-Design Nominal Group Technique Study to Develop the MChart Definition and Typology of the Characteristics of Digital Mental Health Care Navigation Tools.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- The cost-effectiveness of predictive algorithm guided primary antidepressant treatment: economic evaluation of the multinational PReDicT randomised controlled trial.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- Article
- Validation of the PECUNIA reference unit costs templates in Spain: a useful tool for multi-national economic evaluations of health technologies.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing healthcare costs require evidence-based resource use allocation for which assessing costs rigorously and comparably is crucial. Harmonized cross-country costing methods for evaluating interventions from a societal perspective are lacking. This study presents the development process and content of the service costing templates developed as part of the European project PECUNIA.
methodsThe six developmental steps towards technological readiness of the templates included (1) a common conceptual costing framework and review of methodological costing issues, (2) harmonization strategy formulation, (3) proof-of-concept with expert feedback, (4) piloting, (5) validation, and (6) demonstration in six European countries.
resultsThe PECUNIA Reference Unit Cost (RUC) Templates for service costing are three new self-completion tools to be used with secondary or primary data for top-down micro-costing or top-down gross-costing approaches. Complementary data collection and unit cost aggregation/weighting templates are available. The applications leading to the final versions including (4) piloting through calculation of 15-unit costs, (5) validation within a Health Technology Assessment framework, and (6) RUC calculations mostly based on secondary data demonstrated the templates' general feasibility, with feedback for improved usability incorporated and a supplementary user guide developed.
conclusionThe validated PECUNIA RUC Templates for multi-sectoral and multi-country service costing allow for harmonized RUC development while incorporating flexibility and transparency in the choice of costing approaches, data sources and magnitude of remaining heterogeneity. The templates are expected to significantly improve the quality, comparability and availability of unit costs for economic evaluations, and promote the transferability of service cost information across Europe.
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.