↓ Skip to main content

Malaria and Economic Evaluation Methods: Challenges and Opportunities

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Malaria and Economic Evaluation Methods: Challenges and Opportunities
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40258-016-0304-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom L. Drake, Yoel Lubell

Abstract

There is a growing evidence base on the cost effectiveness of malaria interventions. However, certain characteristics of malaria decision problems present a challenge to the application of healthcare economic evaluation methods. This paper identifies five such challenges. The complexities of (i) declining incidence and cost effectiveness in the context of an elimination campaign; (ii) international aid and its effect on resource constraints; and (iii) supranational priority setting, all affect how health economists might use a cost-effectiveness threshold. Consensus and guidance on how to determine and interpret cost-effectiveness thresholds in the context of internationally financed elimination campaigns is greatly needed. (iv) Malaria interventions are often complimentary and evaluations may need to construct intervention bundles to represent relevant policy positions as sets of mutually exclusive alternatives. (v) Geographic targeting is a key aspect of malaria policy making that is only beginning to be addressed in economic evaluations. An approach to budget-based geographic resource allocation is described in an accompanying paper in this issue and addresses some of these methodological challenges.

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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 23%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 17 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 21 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,908,193
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#525
of 784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,036
of 417,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#14
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 417,650 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.