↓ Skip to main content

Cost Effectiveness in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
184 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
235 Mendeley
Title
Cost Effectiveness in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, September 2012
DOI 10.2165/10899580-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel D. Shillcutt, Damian G. Walker, Catherine A. Goodman, Anne J. Mills

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is increasingly important in public health decision making, including in low- and middle-income countries. The decision makers' valuation of a unit of health gain, or ceiling ratio (lambda), is important in CEA as the relative value against which acceptability is defined, although values are usually chosen arbitrarily in practice. Reference case estimates for lambda are useful to promote consistency, facilitate new developments in decision analysis, compare estimates against benefit-cost ratios from other economic sectors, and explicitly inform decisions about equity in global health budgets. The aim of this article is to discuss values for lambda used in practice, including derivation based on affordability expectations (such as $US150 per disability-adjusted life-year [DALY]), some multiple of gross national income or gross domestic product, and preference-elicitation methods, and explore the implications associated with each approach. The background to the debate is introduced, the theoretical bases of current values are reviewed, and examples are given of their application in practice. Advantages and disadvantages of each method for defining lambda are outlined, followed by an exploration of methodological and policy implications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 224 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 23%
Researcher 39 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 4%
Other 43 18%
Unknown 50 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 29%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 20 9%
Social Sciences 19 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Other 40 17%
Unknown 63 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,802,919
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#114
of 1,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,505
of 189,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#15
of 547 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 189,075 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 547 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.