比较澳大利亚和新西兰 100 多种干预措施的健康收益、成本和成本效益:在线互动排行榜。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Population Health Metrics Pub Date : 2022-07-27 DOI:10.1186/s12963-022-00294-3
Natalie Carvalho, Tanara Vieira Sousa, Anja Mizdrak, Amanda Jones, Nick Wilson, Tony Blakely
{"title":"比较澳大利亚和新西兰 100 多种干预措施的健康收益、成本和成本效益:在线互动排行榜。","authors":"Natalie Carvalho, Tanara Vieira Sousa, Anja Mizdrak, Amanda Jones, Nick Wilson, Tony Blakely","doi":"10.1186/s12963-022-00294-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study compares the health gains, costs, and cost-effectiveness of hundreds of Australian and New Zealand (NZ) health interventions conducted with comparable methods in an online interactive league table designed to inform policy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed evaluations (2010 to 2018) arising from the Australia Cost-Effectiveness research and NZ Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Programmes, or using similar methodology, with: health gains quantified as health-adjusted life years (HALYs); net health system costs and/or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; time horizon of at least 10 years; and 3% to 5% discount rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 384 evaluations that met the inclusion criteria, covering 14 intervention domains: alcohol; cancer; cannabis; communicable disease; cardiovascular disease; diabetes; diet; injury; mental illness; other non-communicable diseases; overweight and obesity; physical inactivity; salt; and tobacco. There were large variations in health gain across evaluations: 33.9% gained less than 0.1 HALYs per 1000 people in the total population over the remainder of their lifespan, through to 13.0% gaining > 10 HALYs per 1000 people. Over a third (38.8%) of evaluations were cost-saving.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>League tables of comparably conducted evaluations illustrate the large health gain (and cost) variations per capita between interventions, in addition to cost-effectiveness. Further work can test the utility of this league table with policy-makers and researchers.</p>","PeriodicalId":51476,"journal":{"name":"Population Health Metrics","volume":"20 1","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9327210/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing health gains, costs and cost-effectiveness of 100s of interventions in Australia and New Zealand: an online interactive league table.\",\"authors\":\"Natalie Carvalho, Tanara Vieira Sousa, Anja Mizdrak, Amanda Jones, Nick Wilson, Tony Blakely\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12963-022-00294-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study compares the health gains, costs, and cost-effectiveness of hundreds of Australian and New Zealand (NZ) health interventions conducted with comparable methods in an online interactive league table designed to inform policy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed evaluations (2010 to 2018) arising from the Australia Cost-Effectiveness research and NZ Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Programmes, or using similar methodology, with: health gains quantified as health-adjusted life years (HALYs); net health system costs and/or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; time horizon of at least 10 years; and 3% to 5% discount rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 384 evaluations that met the inclusion criteria, covering 14 intervention domains: alcohol; cancer; cannabis; communicable disease; cardiovascular disease; diabetes; diet; injury; mental illness; other non-communicable diseases; overweight and obesity; physical inactivity; salt; and tobacco. There were large variations in health gain across evaluations: 33.9% gained less than 0.1 HALYs per 1000 people in the total population over the remainder of their lifespan, through to 13.0% gaining > 10 HALYs per 1000 people. Over a third (38.8%) of evaluations were cost-saving.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>League tables of comparably conducted evaluations illustrate the large health gain (and cost) variations per capita between interventions, in addition to cost-effectiveness. Further work can test the utility of this league table with policy-makers and researchers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51476,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Population Health Metrics\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9327210/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Population Health Metrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-022-00294-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population Health Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-022-00294-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究通过一个旨在为政策提供信息的在线互动排行榜,比较了澳大利亚和新西兰(NZ)采用可比方法实施的数百项健康干预措施的健康收益、成本和成本效益:本研究在一份在线互动排行榜中比较了数百项澳大利亚和新西兰(NZ)采用可比方法开展的健康干预措施的健康收益、成本和成本效益,旨在为政策提供参考:我们进行了一项文献综述,以确定澳大利亚成本效益研究和新西兰疾病负担流行病学、公平性和成本效益计划中产生的或采用类似方法的同行评审评估(2010 年至 2018 年),评估内容包括:健康收益量化为健康调整生命年(HALYs);净卫生系统成本和/或增量成本效益比;时间跨度至少为 10 年;贴现率为 3% 至 5%:我们确定了 384 项符合纳入标准的评估,涵盖 14 个干预领域:酒精、癌症、大麻、传染性疾病、心血管疾病、糖尿病、饮食、伤害、精神疾病、其他非传染性疾病、超重和肥胖、缺乏运动、盐和烟草。各评估的健康收益差异很大:33.9%的评估结果显示,在总人口的剩余寿命中,每 1000 人的健康收益低于 0.1 哈拉年,13.0%的评估结果显示,每 1000 人的健康收益大于 10 哈拉年。超过三分之一(38.8%)的评估节省了成本:结论:可比评估的排名表说明,除了成本效益外,不同干预措施的人均健康收益(和成本)也存在巨大差异。进一步的工作可以检验该列表对政策制定者和研究人员的实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Comparing health gains, costs and cost-effectiveness of 100s of interventions in Australia and New Zealand: an online interactive league table.

Background: This study compares the health gains, costs, and cost-effectiveness of hundreds of Australian and New Zealand (NZ) health interventions conducted with comparable methods in an online interactive league table designed to inform policy.

Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed evaluations (2010 to 2018) arising from the Australia Cost-Effectiveness research and NZ Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Programmes, or using similar methodology, with: health gains quantified as health-adjusted life years (HALYs); net health system costs and/or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; time horizon of at least 10 years; and 3% to 5% discount rates.

Results: We identified 384 evaluations that met the inclusion criteria, covering 14 intervention domains: alcohol; cancer; cannabis; communicable disease; cardiovascular disease; diabetes; diet; injury; mental illness; other non-communicable diseases; overweight and obesity; physical inactivity; salt; and tobacco. There were large variations in health gain across evaluations: 33.9% gained less than 0.1 HALYs per 1000 people in the total population over the remainder of their lifespan, through to 13.0% gaining > 10 HALYs per 1000 people. Over a third (38.8%) of evaluations were cost-saving.

Conclusions: League tables of comparably conducted evaluations illustrate the large health gain (and cost) variations per capita between interventions, in addition to cost-effectiveness. Further work can test the utility of this league table with policy-makers and researchers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Population Health Metrics
Population Health Metrics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: Population Health Metrics aims to advance the science of population health assessment, and welcomes papers relating to concepts, methods, ethics, applications, and summary measures of population health. The journal provides a unique platform for population health researchers to share their findings with the global community. We seek research that addresses the communication of population health measures and policy implications to stakeholders; this includes papers related to burden estimation and risk assessment, and research addressing population health across the full range of development. Population Health Metrics covers a broad range of topics encompassing health state measurement and valuation, summary measures of population health, descriptive epidemiology at the population level, burden of disease and injury analysis, disease and risk factor modeling for populations, and comparative assessment of risks to health at the population level. The journal is also interested in how to use and communicate indicators of population health to reduce disease burden, and the approaches for translating from indicators of population health to health-advancing actions. As a cross-cutting topic of importance, we are particularly interested in inequalities in population health and their measurement.
期刊最新文献
The joint distribution of years lived in good and poor health. A new method for estimating recent adult mortality from summary sibling histories. Investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the nutritional status of infants and toddlers: insights from China. Harmonizing measurements: establishing a common metric via shared items across instruments. Examining select sociodemographic characteristics of sub-county geographies for public health surveillance.
×
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:481959085
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