ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2026
A Practical Framework for Understanding Cost-Effectiveness and Decision Risk in Health Benefits Package Design.
Article in Applied health economics and 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGlobal cost-effectiveness evidence is often used in health benefits package (HBP) assessments but is uncertain and subject to the risk of making the wrong decision. HBP assessments use 'adaptive' health technology assessment (aHTA) methods, including reviews of existing cost effectiveness studies and eliciting expert opinion to expedite cost-effectiveness evaluations due to substantial time and data constraints. Using aHTA methods poses a risk of making the wrong decision. However, existing methods for assessing risk, such as value of information analysis (VOI), are time- and data-intensive.
objectivesOur objectives were to develop a practical method to evaluate the risk of making the wrong decision in HBP design and to test this approach in Rwanda.
methodsWe developed a heuristic framework to help decision makers determine whether aHTA methods are sufficient for decision making or de novo cost-effectiveness modelling might be needed. The framework was created by adapting the 'Appraisal of Risk Chart' (ARCH), which was originally designed to evaluate the risk of decision making from de novo cost-effectiveness analyses. We tested the adapted ARCH using an assessment of 136 cancer interventions in Rwanda, where each intervention was charted on the ARCH according to its risk profile.
resultsIn Rwanda, 41 cancer interventions were considered low risk on the ARCH and the remainder were uncertain.
conclusionsWe demonstrate that it is feasible to use the ARCH to determine whether aHTA methods are sufficient or more research is needed in HBP assessments.
Identifiers
42814265What 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.