↓ Skip to main content


Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2003
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 policy source
2 tweeters
2 Wikipedia pages


353 Dimensions

Readers on

444 Mendeley
3 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.
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2003
DOI 10.1186/1478-7547-1-8
Pubmed ID

Raymond Hutubessy, Dan Chisholm, Tessa Edejer


Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is potentially an important aid to public health decision-making but, with some notable exceptions, its use and impact at the level of individual countries is limited. A number of potential reasons may account for this, among them technical shortcomings associated with the generation of current economic evidence, political expediency, social preferences and systemic barriers to implementation. As a form of sectoral CEA, Generalized CEA sets out to overcome a number of these barriers to the appropriate use of cost-effectiveness information at the regional and country level. Its application via WHO-CHOICE provides a new economic evidence base, as well as underlying methodological developments, concerning the cost-effectiveness of a range of health interventions for leading causes of, and risk factors for, disease.The estimated sub-regional costs and effects of different interventions provided by WHO-CHOICE can readily be tailored to the specific context of individual countries, for example by adjustment to the quantity and unit prices of intervention inputs (costs) or the coverage, efficacy and adherence rates of interventions (effectiveness). The potential usefulness of this information for health policy and planning is in assessing if current intervention strategies represent an efficient use of scarce resources, and which of the potential additional interventions that are not yet implemented, or not implemented fully, should be given priority on the grounds of cost-effectiveness.Health policy-makers and programme managers can use results from WHO-CHOICE as a valuable input into the planning and prioritization of services at national level, as well as a starting point for additional analyses of the trade-off between the efficiency of interventions in producing health and their impact on other key outcomes such as reducing inequalities and improving the health of the poor.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
United States 6 1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Nepal 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 421 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 95 21%
Researcher 94 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 10%
Other 32 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 6%
Other 86 19%
Unknown 65 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 154 35%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 46 10%
Social Sciences 36 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 4%
Other 62 14%
Unknown 98 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 21 February 2022.
All research outputs
of 23,172,045 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
of 432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 130,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,172,045 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 130,198 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.