Value is Gendered: The Need for Sex and Gender Considerations in Health Economic Evaluations

IF 3.3 4区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Pub Date : 2024-12-12 DOI:10.1007/s40258-024-00930-z
Martina Mchenga, Lavanya Vijayasingham, Rajalakshmi RamPrakash, Michelle Remme
{"title":"Value is Gendered: The Need for Sex and Gender Considerations in Health Economic Evaluations","authors":"Martina Mchenga,&nbsp;Lavanya Vijayasingham,&nbsp;Rajalakshmi RamPrakash,&nbsp;Michelle Remme","doi":"10.1007/s40258-024-00930-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Economic evaluations play a crucial role in health resource allocation by assessing the costs and effects of various interventions. However, existing methodologies often overlook significant differences related to sex and gender, leading to a ‘blind spot’ in understanding patient heterogeneity. This paper highlights how biological and social factors influence costs and health outcomes differently for women, emphasising the need for a more explicit consideration of these differences in economic evaluations to ensure efficient and equitable resource allocation. The paper is structured to first outline how sex and gender factors impact costs and outcomes. It then identifies biases in current economic evaluation methods and practices, using real-world examples to illustrate the implications of these biases on policymaking and health equity. Notably, we argue that neglecting gender considerations can lead to inefficiencies and inequities in healthcare resource distribution. Key areas of gender bias include the estimation of productivity losses, quality of life variations and the secondary household effects of interventions. The analysis reveals that women often face higher healthcare costs and experience different health outcomes due to systemic biases in treatment and care. The paper concludes with practical recommendations for analysts, decision makers and research funders, advocating for the integration of sex and gender-responsive methodologies in health economic evaluations. Ultimately, this work calls for a paradigm shift in health economics to better reflect the complexities of sex and gender and improve health outcomes for all.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8065,"journal":{"name":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","volume":"23 2","pages":"171 - 181"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40258-024-00930-z.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Health Economics and Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40258-024-00930-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Economic evaluations play a crucial role in health resource allocation by assessing the costs and effects of various interventions. However, existing methodologies often overlook significant differences related to sex and gender, leading to a ‘blind spot’ in understanding patient heterogeneity. This paper highlights how biological and social factors influence costs and health outcomes differently for women, emphasising the need for a more explicit consideration of these differences in economic evaluations to ensure efficient and equitable resource allocation. The paper is structured to first outline how sex and gender factors impact costs and outcomes. It then identifies biases in current economic evaluation methods and practices, using real-world examples to illustrate the implications of these biases on policymaking and health equity. Notably, we argue that neglecting gender considerations can lead to inefficiencies and inequities in healthcare resource distribution. Key areas of gender bias include the estimation of productivity losses, quality of life variations and the secondary household effects of interventions. The analysis reveals that women often face higher healthcare costs and experience different health outcomes due to systemic biases in treatment and care. The paper concludes with practical recommendations for analysts, decision makers and research funders, advocating for the integration of sex and gender-responsive methodologies in health economic evaluations. Ultimately, this work calls for a paradigm shift in health economics to better reflect the complexities of sex and gender and improve health outcomes for all.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
价值是性别化的:在卫生经济评估中需要考虑性别和性别因素。
经济评价通过评估各种干预措施的成本和效果,在卫生资源分配中起着至关重要的作用。然而,现有的方法往往忽略了与性别和性别相关的显著差异,导致在理解患者异质性方面存在“盲点”。本文强调了生物和社会因素对妇女的成本和健康结果的不同影响,强调需要在经济评估中更明确地考虑到这些差异,以确保有效和公平的资源分配。本文的结构首先概述了性别和性别因素如何影响成本和结果。然后,它确定了当前经济评估方法和实践中的偏见,并使用现实世界的例子来说明这些偏见对决策和卫生公平的影响。值得注意的是,我们认为忽视性别因素可能导致医疗资源分配效率低下和不公平。性别偏见的主要领域包括估计生产力损失、生活质量变化和干预措施对家庭的次要影响。分析显示,由于治疗和护理方面的系统性偏见,妇女往往面临更高的医疗保健费用,并经历不同的健康结果。该文件最后为分析人员、决策者和研究资助者提出了实际建议,倡导将性别和促进性别平等的方法纳入卫生经济评价。最终,这项工作呼吁卫生经济学的范式转变,以更好地反映性别和社会性别的复杂性,并改善所有人的健康结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy provides timely publication of cutting-edge research and expert opinion from this increasingly important field, making it a vital resource for payers, providers and researchers alike. The journal includes high quality economic research and reviews of all aspects of healthcare from various perspectives and countries, designed to communicate the latest applied information in health economics and health policy. While emphasis is placed on information with practical applications, a strong basis of underlying scientific rigor is maintained.
期刊最新文献
Insights from Financial Economics to Value Healthcare Investments that Reduce System-Level Risks: Example of Disease Elimination and Eradication. The Increasing Value of Environmental Sustainability Assessments in Healthcare Policy and Technology Evaluation. Cost-Effectiveness and Public Health Impact of Newborn Screening for Spinal Muscular Atrophy in France. Policy Levers for First-Contact Healthcare Provider Choice: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Shanghai's Hierarchical Medical System. The Italian Assessment System for Innovative Medicines: An 8-Year Retrospective Analysis of Outcomes, Criteria, Timelines and Funding Dynamics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1