ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2025
Selecting Cost-Effectiveness Methods for Health Benefits Package Design: A Systematic Approach.
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Cost-effectiveness of cancer interventions in Rwanda: literature review and expert elicitation for health benefits package design.BMJ public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCost-effectiveness (CE) is a common prioritization criterion in health benefits package (HBP) design. However, to assess CE is a time- and data-demanding process, so most HBP exercises rely wholly or partially on global evidence. Extensive investment has been made in analyses, models, and tools to support cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) for HBPs. However, little attention has been paid to how national HBP assessors should both understand and select CE estimates. A structured, national process to select assessment methods is essential for ensuring the accuracy, ownership, and transparency of HBP design. This can be supported by "adaptive" health technology assessment (aHTA) principles, which focus on structured methodological choices based on the time, data, and capacity available. The objective of this paper was to apply aHTA framing to CEA methods selection for HBPs, and to make recommendations on how countries may consider systematically making these choices going forward.
methodsWe first reviewed the definitions and categorization of different aHTA methods. We then conducted a scoping review of previous HBP assessments to understand how CEA methods used in HBPs fit into the aHTA framework, and a follow-up survey of authors to fill gaps. Results of the literature review and survey were interpreted and narratively synthesized.
resultsWe found that previous HBP assessments used four aHTA methods, sometimes simultaneously: expert opinion (n=3/20), review (n=12/20), model adaptation (n=6/20), and new model (n=2/20). The literature review and survey found that aHTA methods for HBPs take between 1-13 months; require different data sources depending on the method(s) used; and generally, require capacity in health economics, medicine, public health, and CE modelling. We supplement our report with a discussion of key considerations for methods selection.
conclusionTrading off time, data, and capacity needs for different CE assessment methods can help to support structured, local design of HBP assessments.
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.