↓ Skip to main content

Thresholds for the cost–effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
5 policy sources
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
817 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Thresholds for the cost–effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches
Published in
Bulletin of the World Health Organization, December 2014
DOI 10.2471/blt.14.138206
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elliot Marseille, Bruce Larson, Dhruv S Kazi, James G Kahn, Sydney Rosen

Abstract

Many countries use the cost-effectiveness thresholds recommended by the World Health Organization's Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective project (WHO-CHOICE) when evaluating health interventions. This project sets the threshold for cost-effectiveness as the cost of the intervention per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted less than three times the country's annual gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Highly cost-effective interventions are defined as meeting a threshold per DALY averted of once the annual GDP per capita. We argue that reliance on these thresholds reduces the value of cost-effectiveness analyses and makes such analyses too blunt to be useful for most decision-making in the field of public health. Use of these thresholds has little theoretical justification, skirts the difficult but necessary ranking of the relative values of locally-applicable interventions and omits any consideration of what is truly affordable. The WHO-CHOICE thresholds set such a low bar for cost-effectiveness that very few interventions with evidence of efficacy can be ruled out. The thresholds have little value in assessing the trade-offs that decision-makers must confront. We present alternative approaches for applying cost-effectiveness criteria to choices in the allocation of health-care resources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 817 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 801 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 193 24%
Researcher 133 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 87 11%
Student > Bachelor 54 7%
Other 48 6%
Other 141 17%
Unknown 161 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 230 28%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 83 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 66 8%
Social Sciences 54 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 36 4%
Other 143 18%
Unknown 205 25%