Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39820973›Full record

ReviewApplied health economics and health policy2025

Methods and Practical Considerations for Conducting Budget Impact Analysis for Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions.

Xuanqian Xie, Jennifer Guo, Alexis K Schaink, Kamilla Guliyeva, Chunmei Li, Wendy J Ungar

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Hepatitis C Screening: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2026
    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.

Xuanqian XieHealth Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, 525 University Avenue, 5th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada. shawn.xie@ontariohealth.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-4331-8233
Jennifer GuoHealth Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, 525 University Avenue, 5th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada.
Alexis K SchainkHealth Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, 525 University Avenue, 5th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada.
Kamilla GuliyevaHealth Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, 525 University Avenue, 5th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5411-1465
Chunmei LiHealth Technology Assessment Program, Ontario Health, 525 University Avenue, 5th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5G 2L3, Canada.
Wendy J UngarProgram of Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0762-0101

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth technology assessment (HTA) can be conducted at the national, provincial, or hospital level. Although provincial and hospital-based HTAs often focus on non-pharmaceutical interventions, budget impact analysis (BIA) methods for non-pharmaceutical interventions have received less attention in the literature.

methodsWe reviewed HTAs of non-pharmaceutical interventions published since 2015 by a Canadian provincial HTA agency, evaluating the characteristics and challenges of conducting a BIA.

resultsWe summarized the unique characteristics of BIAs for different categories of interventions, including surgery and other procedures, diagnostic or screening tests, therapeutic programs, and digital health technologies. We then discussed specific methodological and practical considerations for conducting a BIA of a surgical or other hospital-based procedure. Critical points for BIA methods include the following: (1) when estimating the size of a target population, healthcare system capacity must be accounted for, and historical volumes may offer more realistic figures than prevalence and incidence rates; (2) factors that affect the uptake of a new intervention include guideline recommendations, labor and infrastructure requirements for implementation, and the target population size; (3) when interpreting a budget impact that shows cost savings, analysts must address where the savings are generated from and whether they can be reallocated. Some of the considerations discussed may also apply to HTAs of pharmaceuticals.

conclusionsWhen conducting a BIA of a non-pharmaceutical intervention, addressing these methodological considerations may help in better predicting the financial impact of the new intervention for the public payer and guide appropriate budget allocation for healthcare system planning.

Indexed as

BudgetsTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCanadaCost-Benefit AnalysisHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.