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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A Systematic Review of the State of Economic Evaluation for Health Care in India
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40258-015-0201-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shankar Prinja, Akashdeep Singh Chauhan, Blake Angell, Indrani Gupta, Stephen Jan |
| Abstract |
Economic evaluations are one of the important tools in policy making for rational allocation of resources. Given the very low public investment in the health sector in India, it is critical that resources are used wisely on interventions proven to yield best results. Hence, we undertook this study to assess the extent and quality of evidence for economic evaluation of health-care interventions and programmes in India. A comprehensive search was conducted to search for published full economic evaluations pertaining to India and addressing a health-related intervention or programme. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ScienceDirect, and York CRD database and websites of important research agencies were identified to search for economic evaluations published from January 1980 to the middle of November 2014. Two researchers independently assessed the quality of the studies based on Drummond and modelling checklist. Out of a total of 5013 articles enlisted after literature search, a total of 104 met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The majority of these papers were cost-effectiveness studies (64 %), led by a clinician or public-health professional (77 %), using decision analysis-based methods (59 %), published in an international journal (80 %) and addressing communicable diseases (58 %). In addition, 42 % were funded by an international funding agency or UN/bilateral aid agency, and 30 % focussed on pharmaceuticals. The average quality score of these full economic evaluations was 65.1 %. The major limitation was the inability to address uncertainties involved in modelling as only about one-third of the studies assessed modelling structural uncertainties (33 %), or ran sub-group analyses to account for heterogeneity (36.5 %) or analysed methodological uncertainty (32 %). The existing literature on economic evaluations in India is inadequate to feed into sound policy making. There is an urgent need to generate awareness within the government of how economic evaluation can inform and benefit policy making, and at the same time build capacity of health-care professionals in understanding the economic principles of health-care delivery system. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 125 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 12% |
| Unknown | 41 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 22% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 14 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 44 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 October 2015.
All research outputs
#18,429,163
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#598
of 774 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,101
of 278,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#15
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 774 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 278,190 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.