ReviewHealth economics review2026
Health economic evaluation of health promotion and disease prevention in Germany: a scoping review.
Review in Health economics review, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth promotion and disease prevention are receiving increasing attention in Germany because of their potential to improve population health and reduce healthcare costs. Health-economic evaluations (HEEs) are essential for informing evidence-based decision-making in this field. However, HEEs of preventive interventions often face methodological challenges. This scoping review examines the current state and characteristics of HEEs conducted in the context of health promotion and disease prevention in Germany.
methodsA scoping review was conducted to map the landscape of HEE of health promotion and disease prevention interventions in Germany, following a priori-registered protocol. Three bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science) were searched from their inception to March 2025. The screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts was performed in a blinded, double-reviewer, and stepwise manner using predefined inclusion criteria: (i) focus on the German population, (ii) application of an HEE as the primary research method, and (iii) evaluation of a health-promoting or disease-preventing intervention. Studies focusing on tertiary prevention were excluded.
resultsOf the 4,632 records identified, 162 eligible original studies met the inclusion criteria. The volume of published HEEs has increased over time. Most studies (53.7%) assessed primary preventive interventions. Cost-effectiveness analysis was the most frequently applied HEE analysis type. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are commonly reported as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (42.4% of all ICERs). In 85.2% of the studies, the intervention was judged to be cost-effective. A model-based approach was used in 75.9% of the studies, and 81.3% of these studies relied partly on non-German data sources. More than half of all studies (56.1%) reported limitations due to a lack of German-specific data.
conclusionsHEEs related to health promotion and disease prevention interventions in Germany exhibit substantial methodological heterogeneity. Frequent reliance on non-German data and the large proportion of interventions deemed cost-effective may reflect contextual data gaps and potential publication bias. These issues complicate the interpretation of economic evidence and pose challenges for decision-makers seeking to prioritize preventive strategies.
trial registrationhttps://osf.io/h6749/overview.
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.