Volume 18, Issue 1 (5-2020)
sjsph 2020, 18(1): 29-50 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Zamandi M, Jaafaripooyan E. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Health Interventions: A Critical Review. sjsph 2020; 18 (1) :29-50
URL: http://sjsph.tums.ac.ir/article-1-5860-en.html
URL: http://sjsph.tums.ac.ir/article-1-5860-en.html
1- PhD. Student, Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , mzamandi8@gmail.com
2- PhD. Associate Professor, Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- PhD. Associate Professor, Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (3477 Views)
Background and Aim: Economic evaluation of health interventions by comparing the relevant costs and benefits will result in optimum allocation of resources and increasing the effectiveness of the health system and, through improving equity and increasing accessibility to health services, will lead to increased effectiveness of the health system. The purpose of this study was to critically evaluate the Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) studies on health interventions worldwide.
Materials and Methods: A critical review of the published CEA studies on health interventions was conducted. Seven databases including PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of science, Science Direct, Scopus, Springer Link, and SID were searched between 1975 and 2018, using appropriate keywords. The retrieved articles were evaluated using the Drummond (2005) quality assessment checklist. Overall, 173 articles met the entry criteria and were included in this study.
Results: CEA of health-related interventions were classified into six categories, namely, studies on immunization, education, nutrition, sexually transmitted diseases prevention, gynecological diseases prevention and vector-borne diseases and, eventually, cost-effective interventions were identified. Further analysis of the data showed that the methods used in health intervention CEA studies are very heterogeneous and lack sufficient scientific quality especially in developing countries. Researchers working in this area should pay more attention when designing studies and follow valid guidelines for CEA, particularly as regards research methods, sample size, CEA model, cost and benefit calculations, determining effectiveness, timeframe and, finally, analysis of the sensitivity and validity the research data.
Conclusion: The number of cost effectiveness analysis and cost utility studies has increased greatly during the last two decades. In order to improve the quality of these studies it is essential to revise the guidelines and procedures for economic evaluation of health interventions and train and update researchers in this area.
Materials and Methods: A critical review of the published CEA studies on health interventions was conducted. Seven databases including PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of science, Science Direct, Scopus, Springer Link, and SID were searched between 1975 and 2018, using appropriate keywords. The retrieved articles were evaluated using the Drummond (2005) quality assessment checklist. Overall, 173 articles met the entry criteria and were included in this study.
Results: CEA of health-related interventions were classified into six categories, namely, studies on immunization, education, nutrition, sexually transmitted diseases prevention, gynecological diseases prevention and vector-borne diseases and, eventually, cost-effective interventions were identified. Further analysis of the data showed that the methods used in health intervention CEA studies are very heterogeneous and lack sufficient scientific quality especially in developing countries. Researchers working in this area should pay more attention when designing studies and follow valid guidelines for CEA, particularly as regards research methods, sample size, CEA model, cost and benefit calculations, determining effectiveness, timeframe and, finally, analysis of the sensitivity and validity the research data.
Conclusion: The number of cost effectiveness analysis and cost utility studies has increased greatly during the last two decades. In order to improve the quality of these studies it is essential to revise the guidelines and procedures for economic evaluation of health interventions and train and update researchers in this area.
Keywords: Health Interventions, Economic Evaluation, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Cost Utility Analysis, Critical Review
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Public Health
Received: 2020/06/20 | Accepted: 2020/06/20 | Published: 2020/06/20
Received: 2020/06/20 | Accepted: 2020/06/20 | Published: 2020/06/20
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
