↓ Skip to main content

Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, June 2017
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Incorporating equity in economic evaluations: a multi-attribute equity state approach
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10198-017-0897-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeff Round, Mike Paulden

Abstract

In publicly funded health care systems, decision makers must continually balance often conflicting priorities of efficiency and equity. Health economists have developed a set of highly sophisticated analytical methods for assessing efficiency, but less attention has been paid to formally incorporating equity considerations into analyses. As a result, where equity is considered is often informal, ad hoc and/or simplistic. This paper is a proposal for a mechanism for formally incorporating equity within the decision process. It begins with an overview of the current literature on equity weighting. It then considers the case of a single equity domain and illustrates how this is currently applied in practice by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. It then proposes a more comprehensive method for considering the multi-attribute equity state, where a population exhibits more than one trait considered worthy of differential weighting. Finally, the paper proposes a mechanism by which this could be applied in practice, and concludes with a discussion of the challenges for applying multi-attribute equity weighting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 18%
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 11 13%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 32 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 29 August 2017.
All research outputs
#2,996,827
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#174
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,908
of 330,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#4
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 330,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.