Explore the vast range of titles available.

Dengue is a serious global burden. Unreported and unrecognised apparent dengue virus infections make it difficult to estimate the true extent of dengue and current estimates of the incidence and costs of dengue have substantial uncertainty. Objective, systematic, comparable measures of dengue burden are needed to track health progress, assess the application and financing of emerging preventive and control strategies, and inform health policy. We estimated the global economic burden of dengue by country and super-region (groups of epidemiologically similar countries). We used the latest dengue incidence estimates from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 and several other data sources to assess the economic burden of symptomatic dengue cases in the 141 countries and territories with active dengue transmission. From the scientific literature and regressions, we estimated cases and costs by setting, including the non-medical setting, for all countries and territories. Our global estimates suggest that in 2013 there were a total of 58·40 million symptomatic dengue virus infections (95% uncertainty interval [95% UI] 24 million–122 million), including 13 586 fatal cases (95% UI 4200–34 700), and that the total annual global cost of dengue illness was US$8·9 billion (95% UI 3·7 billion–19·7 billion). The global distribution of dengue cases is 18% admitted to hospital, 48% ambulatory, and 34% non-medical. The global cost of dengue is substantial and, if control strategies could reduce dengue appreciably, billions of dollars could be saved globally. In estimating dengue costs by country and setting, this study contributes to the needs of policy makers, donors, developers, and researchers for economic assessments of dengue interventions, particularly with the licensure of the first dengue vaccine and promising developments in other technologies. Sanofi Pasteur.

Observations from many countries indicate that multiple forms of malnutrition might coexist in a country, a household, and an individual. In this Series, the double burden of malnutrition (DBM) encompasses undernutrition in the form of stunting, and overweight and obesity. Health effects of the DBM include those associated with both undernutrition, such as impaired childhood development and greater susceptibility to infectious diseases, and overweight, especially in terms of increased risk of added visceral fat and increased risk of non-communicable diseases. These health effects have not been translated into economic costs for individuals and economies in the form of lost wages and productivity, as well as higher medical expenses. We summarise the existing approaches to modelling the economic effects of malnutrition and point out the weaknesses of these approaches for measuring economic losses from the DBM. Where population needs suggest that nutrition interventions take into account the DBM, economic evaluation can guide the choice of so-called double-duty interventions as an alternative to separate programming for stunting and overweight. We address the evidence gap with an economic analysis of the costs and benefits of an illustrative double-duty intervention that addresses both stunting and overweight in children aged 4 years and older by providing school meals with improved quality of diet. We assess the plausibility of our method and discuss how improved data and models can generate better estimates. Double-duty interventions could save money and be more efficient than single-duty interventions.

According to the most traditional economic evaluation manuals, all \"relevant\" costs should be included in the economic analysis, taking into account factors such as the patient population, setting, location, year, perspective and time horizon. However, cost information may be designed for other purposes. Health care organisations may lack sophisticated accounting systems and consequently, health economists may be unfamiliar with cost accounting terminology, which may lead to discrepancy in terms used in the economic evaluation literature and management accountancy. This paper identifies new tendencies in costing methodologies in health care and critically comments on each included article. For better clarification of terminology, a pragmatic glossary of terms is proposed. A scoping review of English and Spanish language literature (2005–2018) was conducted to identify new tendencies in costing methodologies in health care. The databases PubMed, Scopus and EconLit were searched. A total of 21 studies were included yielding 43 costing analysis. The most common analysis was top-down micro-costing (49%), followed by top-down gross-costing (37%) and bottom-up micro-costing (14%). Resource data were collected prospectively in 12 top-down studies (32%). Hospital database was the most common way of collection of resource data (44%) in top-down gross-costing studies. In top-down micro-costing studies, the most resource use data collection was the combination of several methods (38%). In general, substantial inconsistencies in the costing methods were found. The convergence of top-down and bottom-up methods may be an important topic in the next decades.

Back pain is a common and costly health problem worldwide. There is yet a lack of consistent methodologies to estimate the economic burden of back pain to society. To systematically evaluate the methodologies used in the published cost of illness (COI) literature for estimating the direct and indirect costs attributed to back pain, and to present a summary of the estimated cost burden. Six electronic databases were searched to identify COI studies of back pain published in English up to February 2021. A total of 1,588 abstracts were screened, and 55 full-text studies were subsequently reviewed. After applying the inclusion criteria, 45 studies pertaining to the direct and indirect costs of back pain were analysed. The studies reported data on 15 industrialised countries. The national cost estimates of back pain in 2015 USD ranged from $259 million ($29.1 per capita) in Sweden to $71.6 billion ($868.4 per capita) in Germany. There was high heterogeneity among the studies in terms of the methodologies used for analysis and the resulting costs reported. Most of the studies assessed costs from a societal perspective (n = 29). The magnitude and accuracy of the reported costs were influenced by the case definition of back pain, the source of data used, the cost components included and the analysis method. Among the studies that provided both direct and indirect cost estimates (n = 15), indirect costs resulting from lost or reduced work productivity far outweighed the direct costs. Back pain imposes substantial economic burden on society. This review demonstrated that existing published COI studies of back pain used heterogeneous approaches reflecting a lack of consensus on methodology. A standardised methodological approach is required to increase credibility of the findings of COI studies and improve comparison of estimates across studies.

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are regularly used in health economics to elicit preferences for healthcare products and programmes. There is growing recognition that DCEs can provide more than information on preferences and, in particular, they have the potential to contribute more directly to outcome measurement for use in economic evaluation. Almost uniquely, DCEs could potentially contribute to outcome measurement for use in both cost-benefit and cost-utility analysis. Within this expanding remit, our intention is to provide a resource for current practitioners as well as those considering undertaking a DCE, using DCE results in a policy/commercial context, or reviewing a DCE. We present the fundamental principles and theory underlying DCEs. To aid in undertaking and assessing the quality of DCEs, we discuss the process of carrying out a choice study and have developed a checklist covering conceptualizing the choice process, selecting attributes and levels, experimental design, questionnaire design, pilot testing, sampling and sample size, data collection, coding of data, econometric analysis, validity, interpretation and welfare and policy analysis. In this fast-moving area, a number of issues remain on the research frontier. We therefore outline potentially fruitful areas for future research associated both with DCEs in general, and with health applications specifically, paying attention to how the results of DCEs can be used in economic evaluation. We also discuss emerging research trends. We conclude that if appropriately designed, implemented, analysed and interpreted, DCEs offer several advantages in the health sector, the most important of which is that they provide rich data sources for economic evaluation and decision making, allowing investigation of many types of questions, some of which otherwise would be intractable analytically. Thus, they offer viable alternatives and complements to existing methods of valuation and preference elicitation.

Background Implementation strategies increase the adoption of evidence-based practices, but they require resources. Although information about implementation costs is critical for decision-makers with budget constraints, cost information is not typically reported in the literature. This is at least partly due to a need for clearly defined, standardized costing methods that can be integrated into implementation effectiveness evaluation efforts. Methods We present a pragmatic approach to systematically estimating detailed, specific resource use and costs of implementation strategies that combine time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC), a business accounting method based on process mapping and known for its practicality, with a leading implementation science framework developed by Proctor and colleagues, which guides specification and reporting of implementation strategies. We illustrate the application of this method using a case study with synthetic data. Results This step-by-step method produces a clear map of the implementation process by specifying the names, actions, actors, and temporality of each implementation strategy; determining the frequency and duration of each action associated with individual strategies; and assigning a dollar value to the resources that each action consumes. The method provides transparent and granular cost estimation, allowing a cost comparison of different implementation strategies. The resulting data allow researchers and stakeholders to understand how specific components of an implementation strategy influence its overall cost. Conclusion TDABC can serve as a pragmatic method for estimating resource use and costs associated with distinct implementation strategies and their individual components. Our use of the Proctor framework for the process mapping stage of the TDABC provides a way to incorporate cost estimation into implementation evaluation and may reduce the burden associated with economic evaluations in implementation science.

Productivity costs are frequently omitted from economic evaluations, despite their often strong impact on cost-effectiveness outcomes. This neglect may be partly explained by the lack of standardization regarding the methodology of estimating productivity costs. This paper aims to contribute to standardization of productivity cost methodology by offering practical guidance on how to estimate productivity costs in economic evaluations. The paper discusses the identification, measurement and valuation of productivity losses. It is recommended to include not only productivity losses related to absenteeism from and reduced productivity at paid work, but also those related to unpaid work. Hence, it is recommended to use a measurement instrument including questions about both paid and unpaid productivity, such as the iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ) or the Valuation of Lost Productivity (VOLP). We indicate how to apply the friction cost and the human capital approach and give practical guidance on deriving final cost estimates.

Background Since the 2009 healthcare system reform, China’s National Essential Public Health Service Package (NEPHSP) has made notable progress. However, due to low levels of informatization and limited attention to rural areas, existing research has primarily focused on urban settings, with few studies examining cost estimation and its practical application in rural regions. Moreover, cost estimation findings are rarely used to inform grassroots management practices. This study aims to provide empirical support for improving the efficiency and quality of the NEPHSP at the grassroots level. Methods This study employed a multi-stage stratified sampling method to randomly select 50 township health centers in Guangxi. Data on revenue, expenditure, and workload related to primary medical services and the NEPHSP were collected. The equivalent method was used to estimate service costs, and correlation analysis and analysis of variance were conducted to identify factors influencing costs and workload. Results Per capita actual subsidy (CNY 57.78) < per capita actual expenditure (CNY 60.35) < per capita allocated subsidy (CNY 74) < per capita estimated cost (CNY 110.96). There was a weak positive correlation between the actual revenue from the NEPHSP and county-level GDP ( r  = 0.375, P  < 0.05), and a weak positive correlation between the per capita estimated cost and the proportion of total equivalent value of the NEPHSP ( r  = 0.414, P  < 0.01). Analysis of variance indicated significant differences in the equivalent value proportions of 13 NEPHSP categories and in the unit equivalent values for some services across counties ( P  < 0.05). Conclusion This study is expected to generate key evidence on the relationships and influencing factors among different per capita costs, as well as the workload and unit efficiency of the NEPHSP, providing empirical support for optimizing resource allocation and improving the efficiency and quality of the NEPHSP.

Cost-of-illness (COI) studies aim to assess the economic burden of health problems on the population overall, and they are conducted for an ever widening range of health conditions and geographical settings. While they attract much interest from public health advocates and healthcare policy makers, inconsistencies in the way in which they are conducted and a lack of transparency in reporting have made interpretation difficult, and have ostensibly limited their usefulness. Yet there is surprisingly little in the literature to assist the non-expert in critically evaluating these studies. This article aims to provide non-expert readers with a straightforward guide to understanding and evaluating traditional COI studies. The intention is to equip a general audience with an understanding of the most important issues that influence the validity of a COI study, and the ability to recognize the most common limitations in such work.

As healthcare providers cope with pricing pressures and increased accountability for performance, they should be rededicating themselves to improving the value they deliver to their patients: better outcomes and lower costs. Time-driven activity-based costing offers the potential for clinicians to redesign their care processes toward that end. This costing approach, however, is new to healthcare and has not yet been systematically implemented and evaluated. This article describes early time-driven activity-based costing work at several leading healthcare organizations in the United States and Europe. It identifies the opportunities they found to improve value for patients and demonstrates how this costing method can serve as the foundation for new bundled payment reimbursement approaches.