| Title |
Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Prevention Science, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11121-017-0858-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
D. Max Crowley, Kenneth A. Dodge, W. Steven Barnett, Phaedra Corso, Sarah Duffy, Phillip Graham, Mark Greenberg, Ron Haskins, Laura Hill, Damon E. Jones, Lynn A. Karoly, Margaret R. Kuklinski, Robert Plotnick |
| Abstract |
Over a decade ago, the Society for Prevention Research endorsed the first standards of evidence for research in preventive interventions. The growing recognition of the need to use limited resources to make sound investments in prevention led the Board of Directors to charge a new task force to set standards for research in analysis of the economic impact of preventive interventions. This article reports the findings of this group's deliberations, proposes standards for economic analyses, and identifies opportunities for future prevention science. Through examples, policymakers' need and use of economic analysis are described. Standards are proposed for framing economic analysis, estimating costs of prevention programs, estimating benefits of prevention programs, implementing summary metrics, handling uncertainty in estimates, and reporting findings. Topics for research in economic analysis are identified. The SPR Board of Directors endorses the "Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science." |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 8 | 73% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 94 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 23% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 19% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 24 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 21 | 22% |
| Psychology | 15 | 16% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 7 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 32 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 01 October 2021.
All research outputs
#2,686,468
of 24,717,821 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#177
of 1,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,719
of 454,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#4
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,821 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 454,964 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.