ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2026
Adopting a Societal Perspective in Health-Economic Evaluation: Analysis of Nine HTA Methodological Guidelines on How to Integrate Societal Costs.
Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe perspective applied in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) has recently been presented as a central methodological debate in HTA. Beyond expected effects on patients' health and quality of life, health technologies can affect broader societal domains, such as the labor market and informal care. Ensuring comparability between treatments when estimating their impact on society relies strongly on transparency regarding the methodology used to measure and value societal costs. This study aims to describe and summarize current recommendations of HTA bodies on adopting societal perspectives in HTA.
methodsA scoping review of HTA guidelines was conducted, and findings were validated through semi-structured interviews with academic and industry HTA experts. Guidelines from nine countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America) were analyzed using an extraction grid covering four domains: out-of-pocket/copayment costs, informal care costs, productivity losses, and unrelated health care costs. Exploratory analyses (multiple factor analysis and clustering) assessed whether recommendations for a societal perspective as a base case were homogeneous across countries.
resultsA societal perspective was recommended as a base case in 56% of the guidelines. Marked cross-country heterogeneity was observed for measurement methods. Only The Netherlands recommended a specific instrument for both informal care and productivity losses (iPCQ). The most frequently cited valuation approaches were the opportunity cost method (informal care) and the friction cost method (productivity losses). Three clusters of countries were identified: The Netherlands/Canada (1); US/Sweden/UK/Germany (2); and Spain/France/Australia (3). Exploratory analyses indicated limited alignment between endorsing the inclusion of societal costs and recommending the societal perspective as base case.
conclusionsThis preliminary work highlights the need for explicit methodological guidance on societal cost estimation within HTA. HTA bodies could draw on the Netherland's guidelines and cost database and develop a national "societal perspective doctrine"-including core cost sets, standardized measurement tools (e.g., iPCQ; diary methods), and structured involvement of patients and caregivers-to enhance comparability and decision relevance.
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.