Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41291630›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2025

Approaches to economic evaluations of complex interventions in thailand: a systematic review.

Luxzup Wattanasukchai, Yuejiao Duan, Nicola McMeekin, Kathleen Boyd, Olivia Wu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 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

5 authors.

Luxzup WattanasukchaiHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom. l.wattanasukchai.1@research.gla.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5174-4788
Yuejiao DuanHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0000-9489-9253
Nicola McMeekinHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2918-8820
Kathleen BoydHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9764-0113
Olivia WuHealth Economics and Health Technology Assessment (HEHTA), School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0570-6016

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComplex interventions (CIs) are multifaceted health interventions that incorporate health, behavioural, social, organisational, and policy modifications at both individual and population levels. Therefore, evaluating the trade-offs between costs and benefits of CIs is challenging. In Thailand, CIs are increasingly being adopted in different settings and contexts. This study aims to synthesise the evidence on methodological approaches employed in economic evaluation of CIs within the Thai context.

methodsA systematic review of health economic evaluations of CIs in Thailand was conducted. Four databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, EconLit, and HiTAP) were searched between January 2008 and July 2024. Studies were included if they met the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (MRC) definition for CIs (i.e., multicomponent design, behavioural targeting, expertise and skill requirements, multi-targeted group setting, and flexibility) and reported economic evaluations (cost-benefit, cost-consequence, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimisation analyses) in Thailand. Non-English language and non-human studies were excluded. Relevant data on intervention types, methodological characteristics, and key findings were extracted and a narrative synthesis was carried out. The quality of included studies was assessed using the CHEERS checklist.

resultsSixty studies met the eligible criteria, categorised into screening programmes (33%), vaccination programmes (30%), other public health interventions (22%), and treatment and rehabilitation interventions (15%). Model-based cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective with lifetime horizon was the most frequently reported approach, particularly in screening programmes and treatment and rehabilitation interventions. while mid- and short-term horizons were more common for public health and treatment interventions, respectively. None explicitly identified interventions as CIs. However, alignment with MRC guidance was partial with limited use of designs capturing multidirectional, multisector effects, minimal stakeholder engagement, and underuse of advanced modelling techniques. Cost-benefit and cost-consequence analyses were underutilised. Most studies fulfilled the CHEERS criteria, but inconsistent reporting and weak stakeholder involvement indicated methodological gaps.

conclusionEconomic evaluations of CIs in Thailand have expanded since 2008. Partially adherence to the MRC framework, important gaps remain in comprehensive perspectives, early integration of economic considerations, and the use of advanced modelling techniques. Addressing these areas could enhance the robustness and policy relevance of future evaluations.

trial registrationCRD42024542012.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansThailandComplex health interventionCost benefit analysisCost effectiveness analysisCost utility analysisHealth policyMethodological approachesPublic health interventionThai

Identifiers

PMID41291630
PMCPMC12648963

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.