Literature DB >> 10790702

Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost-effectiveness analysis.

C J Murray1, D B Evans, A Acharya, R M Baltussen.   

Abstract

The growing use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to evaluate specific interventions is dominated by studies of prospective new interventions compared with current practice. This type of analysis does not explicitly take a sectoral perspective in which the costs and effectiveness of all possible interventions are compared, in order to select the mix that maximizes health for a given set of resource constraints. WHO guidelines on generalized CEA propose the application of CEA to a wide range of interventions to provide general information on the relative costs and health benefits of different interventions in the absence of various highly local decision constraints. This general approach will contribute to judgements on whether interventions are highly cost-effective, highly cost-ineffective, or something in between. Generalized CEAs require the evaluation of a set of interventions with respect to the counterfactual of the null set of the related interventions, i.e. the natural history of disease. Such general perceptions of relative cost-effectiveness, which do not pertain to any specific decision-maker, can be a useful reference point for evaluating the directions for enhancing allocative efficiency in a variety of settings. The proposed framework allows the identification of current allocative inefficiencies as well as opportunities presented by new interventions. Copyright 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10790702     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(200004)9:3<235::aid-hec502>3.0.co;2-o

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  134 in total

Review 1.  Design, analysis and presentation of multinational economic studies: the need for guidance.

Authors:  Francis Pang
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Comparative efficiency of national health systems: cross national econometric analysis.

Authors:  D B Evans; A Tandon; C J Murray; J A Lauer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-08-11

3.  The cost-utility of adjuvant chemotherapy using docetaxel and cyclophosphamide compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in breast cancer.

Authors:  T Younis; D Rayson; C Skedgel
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 4.  Advances in cancer therapeutics and patient access to new drugs.

Authors:  George Dranitsaris; Ilse Truter; Martie S Lubbe; Eitan Amir; William Evans
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 5.  Time to reassess strategies for improving health in developing countries.

Authors:  David B Evans; Taghreed Adam; Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer; Stephen S Lim; Andrew Cassels; Timothy G Evans
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-11-12

Review 6.  Clarifying efficiency-equity tradeoffs through explicit criteria, with a focus on developing countries.

Authors:  Chris James; Guy Carrin; William Savedoff; Piya Hanvoravongchai
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2005-03

Review 7.  Topics in global public health.

Authors:  David A Spiegel; Richard A Gosselin; R Richard Coughlin; Adam L Kushner; Stephen B Bickler
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-08-19       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Cost-effectiveness league tables: valuable guidance for decision makers?

Authors:  Josephine Mauskopf; Frans Rutten; Warren Schonfeld
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Using pharmacoeconomic modelling to determine value-based pricing for new pharmaceuticals in malaysia.

Authors:  George Dranitsaris; Ilse Truter; Martie S Lubbe; Nitin N Sriramanakoppa; Vivian M Mendonca; Sangameshwar B Mahagaonkar
Journal:  Malays J Med Sci       Date:  2011-10

10.  Health-related development aid: what comes after it?

Authors:  Steffen Fleßa
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2013-12-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.