ArticleBMJ public health2026
Cost-effectiveness of cancer interventions in Rwanda: literature review and expert elicitation for health benefits package design.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Practical Framework for Understanding Cost-Effectiveness and Decision Risk in Health Benefits Package Design.Applied health economics and health policy · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Prioritising health benefits packages (HBPs) that specify which health services are covered under insurance is sometimes done in disease-specific clusters. Cancer is a good candidate for this, given its high cost and rising disease burden, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.The Government of Rwanda assessed 49 cancers against nine criteria to inform the design of its HBP. Each cancer had a basic, core and enhanced package of services, and one preventive intervention was assessed, totalling 148 interventions. This paper focuses on the results of one criterion: cost-effectiveness. The objectives were to specify which cost-effectiveness methods were selected and why; to assess the cost-effectiveness of 148 cancer interventions; and to recommend how to strengthen the global cost-effectiveness evidence base. Methods: Methods were selected using an adaptive health technology assessment approach, by considering the trade-offs between available time, data and capacity. The assessment undertook a review of the Tufts cost-effectiveness assessment (CEA) registry and filled evidence gaps with structured expert elicitation. Analysts summarised lessons learnt to recommend improvements to the global cost-effectiveness evidence base. Results: Of the 148 cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) sought, 39 were from the Tufts registry and 83 were expert elicited. Limited availability of CERs from the literature resulted in a disproportionate number of CERs being elicited from experts. Analysts recommend better reporting and improved consistency in the extraction of CEAs to support HBP design. Conclusion: This is the first study to assess the cost-effectiveness of many cancers simultaneously for HBP design. It highlights the strengths and limitations of existing evidence and demonstrates the feasibility of combining rapid review with expert elicitation to obtain replicable CER estimates. These cost-effectiveness findings were used to prioritise a package of cancer services for Rwanda alongside several other criteria (reported separately).
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.