Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2008;336:1140-1141 (24 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.39553.480706.80 (published 21 April 2008)
Intervention should be sooner rather than later, even though exact costs and benefits are uncertain
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Cost effectiveness models are widely used to help policy makers and clinicians make decisions about alternative interventions. Models have limitations that are well understood—a model is only as reliable, or generalisable, as the assumptions and data that inform it. Moreover, a cost effectiveness model will not deal with questions about feasibility, acceptability, or affordability that may be crucial to decisions about implementation. However, decision analysis models often help to clarify the key factors likely to influence cost effectiveness, so that decision makers can better understand the importance of remaining uncertainties and make more logical decisions in the face of uncertainty.1 2
In the accompanying paper, Gillies and colleagues report a cost effectiveness analysis for screening and prevention of type 2 diabetes.3 They compare four strategies—screening for diabetes; screening for diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance, followed by either lifestyle interventions or drugs; and no screening. Their findings are consistent with the intuitively
Elizabeth C Goyder, reader in public health medicine
1 Regent Court, Sheffield S1 4DA
e.goyder@sheffield.ac.uk
Read all Rapid Responses