Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Why and How

Campillo-Artero, Carlos; Rubio, Vicente Ortún

doi:10.1016/j.rec.2016.01.012

Cited by 13 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Non-parametric methods will be used to calculate the ICER CIs based on bootstrap estimates of average costs and the difference effects, which will also be used to construct a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. As is common for this type of intervention in the Spain, we assume a willingness to pay of €25.000 per QALY 40 41…”

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Tackling frailty at primary care: evaluation of the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention through a randomised controlled trial: study protocol

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThis project focuses on how frailty is addressed in primary healthcare (PHC) and will evaluate the effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention (considering the appropriateness of the pharmaceutical prescription, the nutritional care provided and the exercise intervention) for persons with frailty, in terms of improving their functional capacity and reducing the incidence of adverse events related to frailty. The final evaluation will be made at 12 months’ follow-up.Methods and analysisPragmatic multicentre cluster randomised controlled clinical trial, single blind with two arms: multifactorial intervention in PHC versus usual follow-up. The randomisation unit is the patient list and the analysis unit is the patient. In addition, a cost-effectiveness study and a qualitative study will be carried out, the latter based on semistructured interviews and focus groups. Two hundred persons (100 per study branch) all aged ≥70 years, presenting frailty, but functionally independent and resident in the community, will be recruited. A baseline evaluation will be carried out prior to the intervention, with follow-up at 6 and 12 months. The main study variables considered will be functional capacity and incidence of adverse events; the secondary variables considered will be the patients’ sociodemographic characteristics, nutritional status, level of physical activity and drug consumption, together with data on comorbidity, cognitive and affective status and health-related quality of life. Data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle using a 5% significance level.Ethics and disseminationThe study will at all times be conducted in strict accordance with the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki and with the national legislation regulating patients’ autonomy. All patients recruited will be asked to provide written informed consent before taking part in the clinical trial. On completion of the study, the principal investigator expects to publish the results of this research in a peer-reviewed open access scientific journal.Trial registration numberISRCTN17143761.

show abstract

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Tackling frailty at primary care: evaluation of the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention through a randomised controlled trial: study protocol

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…De esta manera se pueden to-mar decisiones de una manera más racional y objetiva, más beneficiosas para los pacientes, pero también para los sistemas de salud. No es el único elemento a considerar, pues hay otras variables políticas, sociales y culturales en juego en estas decisiones, pero la posibilidad de contar con un sistema que quiera administrar los recursos de forma racional no se debería soslayar (8) .…”

Section: Estudios De Costo -Efectividadunclassified

Análisis de costo - efectividad: a propósito de un estudio sobre prevención primaria con desfibrilador implantable en Uruguay

Cuesta

2023

Rev.Urug.Cardiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…CEA is applied to planning and management of many types of organised activities, and it is used in many aspects of life which includes the health sector where it may be inappropriate to monetise health effects. Campillo-Artero and Ortún (2016) defined CEA as a measure of health that developed countries use in making funding decisions, which is aimed at publicly funding health technologies that produce the greatest health gain at a given cost. CEA has faced some setbacks due to the fact that it reflects mistrust of the underlying methods or the motives of the parties conducting the analyses, or a desire on the part of many to deny or downplay the underlying problem of resource scarcity in health care due to the ethical difficulty in monetizing health effects.…”

Section: Cost-benefit Analysis Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cost-benefit analysis model for the retrofit of sustainable urban drainage systems towards improved flood risk mitigation

Oladunjoye

Proverbs

Collins

et al. 2019

IJBPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The Environment Agency estimates that one in six homes in England (approximately 5.2m properties) are at risk from flooding and 185,000 commercial properties are located in flood-prone areas. Further, an estimate of 10,000 new homes are built on flood plains yearly. The UK has witnessed a significant increase in flood events over the past 10 years. During this period, there has been growing research attention into measures to mitigate the effects of flooding, including the benefits of deploying sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDs) in new developments or as a retrofit. The purpose of this paper is to present the development of a cost-benefit analysis model for the retrofit of SuDs focusing on the potential for improved flood risk mitigation in the context of commercial properties. Design/methodology/approach A synthesis of flood risk management and SuDs literature is used to inform the development of a conceptual cost-benefit analysis model for the retrofit of SuDs and focusing on the potential for improved flood risk mitigation in the context of commercial properties. Findings SuDs have been applied successfully in different parts of the world; however, the uptake of SuDs, in particular, the retrofit of SuDs, has been restricted by a number of issues including a lack of experience and trust in their performance and a lack of understanding in their true benefits. In particular, there is the limited experience of retrofitting SuDs and there are no well-established procedures for evaluating the feasibility, value or cost effectiveness of doing this. Social implications This offers the potential to support the UK government’s flood risk management policy by helping to increase the resilience of properties, whilst offering other benefits to communities such as improvements in air quality and biodiversity and also presenting a clearer understanding of the monetary and non-monetary implication to owners of commercial properties for a more informed and acceptable uptake of SuDs retrofit. Originality/value The proposed model will allow a more comprehensive understanding of the costs and associated benefits associated with SuDs retrofit, highlighting the flood risk mitigation benefits that might accrue over a period of time for commercial property.

show abstract

Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Why and How

Cited by 13 publications

References 7 publications

Tackling frailty at primary care: evaluation of the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention through a randomised controlled trial: study protocol

Tackling frailty at primary care: evaluation of the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention through a randomised controlled trial: study protocol

Análisis de costo - efectividad: a propósito de un estudio sobre prevención primaria con desfibrilador implantable en Uruguay

A cost-benefit analysis model for the retrofit of sustainable urban drainage systems towards improved flood risk mitigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About