Assessing the scope and reporting quality of published health economic evaluation studies in Jordan: a systematic literature review.

backgroundJordan faces growing healthcare challenges driven by limited resources, rising healthcare expenditures, and an increasing burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Economic evaluations are essential for informing resource allocation and supporting health technology assessment (HTA). To date, however, no systematic review has summarized the scope and reporting quality of published full health economic evaluation studies (HEEs) in Jordan.

objectivesThis study aimed to systematically identify, describe, and assess the reporting quality of published full HEES conducted in Jordan using PRISMA.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar databases was conducted up to November 2025. Eligible studies were full economic evaluation studies (cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-benefit analyses) performed in Jordan and published in peer-reviewed journals. Data were extracted on study characteristics, economic analytical details, and outcomes. Adherence to reporting guidelines was appraised using CHEERS 2022 checklist.

resultsOut of 546 records screened, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. The earliest full HEEs appeared in 2014, with research activity increasing after 2020, coinciding with the governmental efforts to activate the role of economic evaluations at national institutions. Most studies were cost-effectiveness analyses (n = 8, 53.3%), followed by cost-utility (n = 4, 26.7%) and cost-benefit analyses (n = 3, 20%). Most studies utilized a model-based design, predominantly adopting a healthcare system or payer perspective and focusing on direct medical costs. Non-communicable diseases, particularly neoplasms, were the most frequently studied disease areas. The median CHEERS score was 22.5 (IQR: 21 to 23) out of 28, indicating fair reporting quality, with frequent gaps in specifying comparators in study titles, analysis plans, and model validation.

conclusionsThe volume of health economics evaluations in Jordan is small but rapidly evolving showing overall fair reporting quality sustained by a high standard of classical reporting. Identified gaps in some reporting items reflect slow integration of new requirements rather than core methodological flaws. The current published research is structurally fragmented, biased toward pharmaceuticals, lacks standardized cost-effectiveness thresholds and localized empirical data. To effectively support Jordan's transition toward Universal Health Coverage, the evolving national HTA framework must shift from a reactive to proactive institutionalized mechanism.