Cost-effectiveness calculators for health, well-being and safety promotion: a systematic review.
Journal
European journal of public health
ISSN: 1464-360X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9204966
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 10 2021
26 10 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
11
5
2021
medline:
21
12
2021
entrez:
10
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The health, well-being and safety of the general population are important goals for society, but forecasting outcomes and weighing up the costs and benefits of effective promotional programmes is challenging. This study aimed to identify and describe the cost-effectiveness calculators that analyze interventions that promote health, well-being and safety. Our systematic review used the CINAHL, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, EconLit, PubMed and Scopus databases to identify peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 2010 and April 2020. The data were analyzed with narrative synthesis. The searches identified 6880 papers and nine met our eligibility and quality criteria. All nine calculators focussed on interventions that promoted health and well-being, but no safety promotion tools were identified. Five calculators were targeted at group-level initiatives, two at regional levels and two at national levels. The calculators combined different data sources, in addition to data inputted by users. This included empirical research and previous literature. The calculators created baseline estimates and assessed the cost-effectiveness of the interventions before or after they were implemented. The calculators were heterogeneous in terms of outcomes, the interventions they evaluated and the data and methods used. This review identified nine calculators that assessed the cost-effectiveness of health and well-being interventions and supported decision-making and resource allocations at local, regional and national levels, but none focussed on safety. Producing calculators that work accurately in different contexts might be challenging. Further research should identify how to assess sustainable evaluation of health, well-being and safety strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The health, well-being and safety of the general population are important goals for society, but forecasting outcomes and weighing up the costs and benefits of effective promotional programmes is challenging. This study aimed to identify and describe the cost-effectiveness calculators that analyze interventions that promote health, well-being and safety.
METHODS
Our systematic review used the CINAHL, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, EconLit, PubMed and Scopus databases to identify peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 2010 and April 2020. The data were analyzed with narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
The searches identified 6880 papers and nine met our eligibility and quality criteria. All nine calculators focussed on interventions that promoted health and well-being, but no safety promotion tools were identified. Five calculators were targeted at group-level initiatives, two at regional levels and two at national levels. The calculators combined different data sources, in addition to data inputted by users. This included empirical research and previous literature. The calculators created baseline estimates and assessed the cost-effectiveness of the interventions before or after they were implemented. The calculators were heterogeneous in terms of outcomes, the interventions they evaluated and the data and methods used.
CONCLUSION
This review identified nine calculators that assessed the cost-effectiveness of health and well-being interventions and supported decision-making and resource allocations at local, regional and national levels, but none focussed on safety. Producing calculators that work accurately in different contexts might be challenging. Further research should identify how to assess sustainable evaluation of health, well-being and safety strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33970246
pii: 6273047
doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckab068
pmc: PMC8546878
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
997-1003Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.
Références
BMC Res Notes. 2015 Sep 18;8:457
pubmed: 26384647
Eur J Public Health. 2017 Aug 1;27(4):670-679
pubmed: 28371813
PLoS Med. 2016 Feb 23;13(2):e1001963
pubmed: 26905063
BMC Med. 2015 Jan 06;13:1
pubmed: 25563062
J Occup Environ Med. 2019 Jul;61(7):597-604
pubmed: 31022100
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020 Sep;16(9):1183-1191
pubmed: 32147460
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Jan;245:112661
pubmed: 31760319
Stat Methods Med Res. 2015 Dec;24(6):615-34
pubmed: 21930515
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015;15 Suppl 3:S4
pubmed: 26391559
Osteoporos Int. 2011 Sep;22(9):2449-59
pubmed: 21104231
Eur J Public Health. 2021 Feb 1;31(1):156-160
pubmed: 32879966
Br Med Bull. 2011;97:197-210
pubmed: 21285110
Breastfeed Med. 2017 Dec;12(10):645-658
pubmed: 28906133
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
J Health Psychol. 2016 Jul;21(7):1481-90
pubmed: 25432458
Prev Sci. 2011 Dec;12(4):435-51
pubmed: 21773728
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2019 Sep/Oct;25(5):E1-E5
pubmed: 31348170
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 24;9(4):e025752
pubmed: 31023757
Am J Public Health. 2015 Aug;105(8):e13-5
pubmed: 26066942
J Occup Environ Med. 2010 May;52(5):528-35
pubmed: 20431406
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Apr 5;17(1):36
pubmed: 30953520