Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40979466›Full record

ReviewInnovation in aging2025

Cost-benefit analysis of interventions for dementia: a scoping review.

Tracy Comans, Tiet-Hanh Dao-Tran, Namal Balasooriya, Digby Simpson, Lee-Fay Low, Annica Barcenilla-Wong, Paola Vasquez, Junru Zhou, Kim-Huong Nguyen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Innovation in aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Tracy ComansCentre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine & Behavioural Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2840-3496
Tiet-Hanh Dao-TranCentre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine & Behavioural Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4175-5648
Namal BalasooriyaSchool of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5044-7386
Digby SimpsonCentre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine & Behavioural Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1291-5166
Lee-Fay LowSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9283-3525
Annica Barcenilla-WongSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2775-9415
Paola VasquezCentre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine & Behavioural Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Junru ZhouCentre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine & Behavioural Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3830-5888
Kim-Huong NguyenCentre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine & Behavioural Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2592-9372

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Recently, cost-benefit analysis has been increasingly used to evaluate the value of interventions for dementia. This study aims to synthesize the methodology used in cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for dementia interventions. Research Design and Methods: We conducted a scoping review with comprehensive systematic searches for original peer-reviewed articles published from January 2010 to December 2023, and included the studies if they (1) performed a CBA of interventions for dementia, (2) described either cost or benefit items, and (3) performed quantitative data analysis on either costs or benefits. The review adhered to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist to write the report. Results: Of the 3415 articles found from the search, 15 were included in the review. Data analysis included the traditional CBA approach and its integration with the social return on investment approach. The set of cost and benefit items may vary depending on the intervention. Staff training, intervention supplies, building hire, and transportation were common cost items. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY), general practitioner visits, and emergency room visits were common benefit items. Cost data were often sourced from the study budget/assumptions. Benefit data were often sourced from the social value banks and literature. Market and shadow pricing were used for cost valuation. The value of statistical life was frequently used for benefit valuation. Discussion and Implications: This review synthesized data analysis methods, lists of cost and benefit items, data sources, and valuation methods used in the CBA of interventions for dementia. The findings provide helpful information for considering methodology in future CBA of interventions for dementia and similar interventions or conditions.

Indexed as

Economic evaluationEvidence-based practiceHealthcare policyInterventionResearch methods

Identifiers

PMID40979466
PMCPMC12448809

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.