ReviewCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
Extended cost-effectiveness analysis in global health systems: a scoping review of geographic gaps and research trends.
Review in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtended Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (ECEA) extends conventional cost-effectiveness analysis by incorporating financial risk protection (FRP) and examining the distribution of health and economic outcomes across socioeconomic groups. This scoping review aimed to map the application of ECEA in health-sector studies, identify methodological patterns, and explore geographic and thematic research gaps.
methodsA scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches were performed on 29 October 2025 in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and Google Scholar. Studies published between 2000 and 2025 that applied ECEA to evaluate health interventions were eligible for inclusion. Data were extracted on intervention characteristics, analytical approaches, equity measures, and FRP outcomes and were synthesized narratively.
resultsA total of 1,955 records were identified, of which 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in Asia and Africa. The included studies primarily evaluated vaccination programs, taxation policies on harmful products, publicly financed health services, and maternal and child health interventions. Financial Risk Protection (FRP) outcomes were most commonly reported as reductions in out-of-pocket expenditures, catastrophic health expenditures averted, and poverty cases averted. Across studies, ECEA was predominantly used to assess the distribution of health and financial outcomes across socioeconomic groups, with outcomes commonly reported by income quintiles.
conclusionECEA applications remain limited and are predominantly concentrated in low- and middle-income countries, particularly within preventive and fiscal health interventions. The reviewed evidence suggests that ECEA provides a useful framework for assessing both health outcomes and financial risk protection across socioeconomic groups. Future research should expand ECEA applications to underrepresented settings and promote greater methodological standardization of equity and FRP measures.
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.