ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2025
Beyond cost-effectiveness: a reflective commentary on adapting global health technology assessment for equity considerations in South Africa and other LMICs.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This commentary critiques the global transplantation of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) frameworks grounded in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA), highlighting their potential misalignment with the ethical and historical realities of LMICs such as South Africa. We introduce utilitarian principlism, a hybrid ethical framework that combines utilitarian efficiency with the normative safeguards of principlism to enable context-sensitive health priority-setting. Drawing on two recent empirical studies done by the authors (currently under review), we show that internationally developed EQ-5D value sets used to compute CEA locally in South Africa correlate poorly with patient-reported health status in South Africa and that sociodemographic variables significantly influence patient-perceived health scores necessitating a deep understanding of South African history to adequately make ethical and fair healthcare policy decisions. We argue that while locally derived utility weights are necessary for more accurate local CEA analysis, use of metrics like CEA alone in contexts like South Africa fails to address systemic inequity in the population. Instead, we propose a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework to integrate CEA determined by using locally derived value sets with ethical and contextual considerations. We therefore recommend four policy shifts: (1) ethical adaptation of economic methods; (2) localisation of HTA methods and value sets; (3); contextualisation of global HTA guidance and (4) a move away from cost efficacy only metrics and adoption of MCDA approaches. This approach advances a model of contextual fairness and ethical pluralism, enabling LMICs to build HTA systems that reflect their own moral, historical, and public health priorities, offering a principled, equitable path forward for value-based healthcare reform.
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.