↓ Skip to main content

Accounting for equity considerations in cost-effectiveness analysis: a systematic review of rotavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 265)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
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
Accounting for equity considerations in cost-effectiveness analysis: a systematic review of rotavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12962-018-0102-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie-Anne Boujaoude, Andrew J. Mirelman, Kim Dalziel, Natalie Carvalho

Abstract

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is frequently used as an input for guiding priority setting in health. However, CEA seldom incorporates information about trade-offs between total health gains and equity impacts of interventions. This study investigates to what extent equity considerations have been taken into account in CEA in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), using rotavirus vaccination as a case study. Specific equity-related indicators for vaccination were first mapped to the Guidance on Priority Setting in Health Care (GPS-Health) checklist criteria. Economic evaluations of rotavirus vaccine in LMICs identified via a systematic review of the literature were assessed to explore the extent to which equity was considered in the research objectives and analysis, and whether it was reflected in the evaluation results. The mapping process resulted in 18 unique indicators. Under the 'disease and intervention' criteria, severity of illness was incorporated in 75% of the articles, age distribution of the disease in 70%, and presence of comorbidities in 5%. For the 'social groups' criteria, relative coverage reflecting wealth-based coverage inequality was taken into account in 30% of the articles, geographic location in 27%, household income level in 8%, and sex at birth in 5%. For the criteria of 'protection against the financial and social effects of ill health', age weighting was incorporated in 43% of the articles, societal perspective in 58%, caregiver's loss of productivity in 45%, and financial risk protection in 5%. Overall, some articles incorporated the indicators in their model inputs (20%) while the majority (80%) presented results (costs, health outcomes, or incremental cost-effectiveness ratios) differentiated according to the indicators. Critically, less than a fifth (17%) of articles incorporating indicators did so due to an explicit study objective related to capturing equity considerations. Most indicators were increasingly incorporated over time, with a notable exception of age-weighting of DALYs. Integrating equity criteria in CEA can help policy-makers better understand the distributional impact of health interventions. This study illustrates how equity considerations are currently being incorporated within CEA of rotavirus vaccination and highlights the components of equity that have been used in studies in LMICs. Areas for further improvement are identified.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 24%
Student > Master 14 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Unspecified 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 11%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Unspecified 4 6%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 19 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 30 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,210,340
of 14,759,386 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#15
of 265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,416
of 276,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,759,386 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 265 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 276,897 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them