Abstract
When different health care interventions are not expected to produce the same outcomes both the costs and the consequences of the options need to be assessed. This can be done by cost-effectiveness analysis, whereby the costs are compared with outcomes measured in natural units--for example, per life saved, per life year gained, and per pain or symptom free day. Many cost-effective analyses rely on existing published studies for effectiveness data as it is often too costly or time consuming to collect data on cost and effectiveness during a clinical trial. Where there is uncertainty about the costs and effectiveness of procedures sensitivity analysis can be used, which examines the sensitivity of the results to alternative assumptions about key variables. In this article Ray Robinson describes these methods of analysis and discusses possibilities for how the benefits of alternative interventions should be valued.
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012