| Title |
Discounting in Economic Evaluations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-018-0672-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arthur E. Attema, Werner B. F. Brouwer, Karl Claxton |
| Abstract |
Appropriate discounting rules in economic evaluations have received considerable attention in the literature and in national guidelines for economic evaluations. Rightfully so, as discounting can be quite influential on the outcomes of economic evaluations. The most prominent controversies regarding discounting involve the basis for and height of the discount rate, whether costs and effects should be discounted at the same rate, and whether discount rates should decline or stay constant over time. Moreover, the choice for discount rules depends on the decision context one adopts as the most relevant. In this article, we review these issues and debates, and describe and discuss the current discounting recommendations of the countries publishing their national guidelines. We finish the article by proposing a research agenda. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 Kingdom | 2 | 22% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 22% |
| Australia | 1 | 11% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 5 | 56% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 44% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 444 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 444 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 80 | 18% |
| Researcher | 52 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 47 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 33 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 6% |
| Other | 44 | 10% |
| Unknown | 161 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 89 | 20% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 44 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 21 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 4% |
| Other | 62 | 14% |
| Unknown | 189 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 09 June 2022.
All research outputs
#2,020,662
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#139
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,467
of 347,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#4
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 347,302 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.