The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Task Force on Community Preventive Services
Abstract
This paper describes the methods used in the Guide to Community Preventive Services: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Recommendations (the Guide) for conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations across community health-promotion and disease-prevention interventions. The lack of standardized methods to improve the comparability of results from economic evaluations has hampered the use of data on costs and financial benefits in evidence-based reviews of effectiveness. The methods and instruments developed for the Guide provide an explicit and systematic approach for abstracting economic evaluation data and increase the usefulness of economic information for policy making in health care and public health. The following steps were taken for systematic reviews of economic evaluations: (1) systematic searches were conducted; (2) studies using economic analytic methods, such as cost analysis or cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit or cost-utility analysis, were selected according to explicit inclusion criteria; (3) economic data were abstracted and adjusted using a standardized abstraction form; and (4) adjusted summary measures were listed in summary tables. These methods were used in a review of 10 interventions designed to improve vaccination coverage in children, adolescents and adults. Ten average costs and 14 cost-effectiveness ratios were abstracted or calculated from data reported in 24 studies and expressed in 1997 USD. The types of costs included in the analysis and intervention definitions varied extensively. Gaps in data were found for many interventions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Kushi, L. H., Byers, T., Doyle, C., Bandera, E. V., McCullough, M., Gansler, T., Andrews, K. S., Thun, M. J., & The American Cancer Society 2006 Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee (2006) · CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.56.5.254 · Cited by 1,901
Allcott, H., & Rogers, T. (2014) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.104.10.3003 · Cited by 1,340
Speck, R. M., Courneya, K. S., Mâsse, L. C., Duval, S., & Schmitz, K. H. (2010) · Journal of Cancer Survivorship · doi:10.1007/s11764-009-0110-5 · Cited by 1,352
Economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in the U.S., 2006
Bouchery, E. E., Harwood, H. J., Sacks, J. J., Simon, C. J., & Brewer, R. D. (2011) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2011.06.045 · Cited by 1,041
Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions
Rychetnik, L., Frommer, M., Hawe, P., & Shiell, A. (2002) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.56.2.119 · Cited by 1,042
Metadata
- Venue
- The Guide to Community Preventive Services
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressNew York
- Published
- 2005-02-10
- Pages
- v-viii
- OpenAlex
- W2185186195
- Cited by
- 1,159
- References
- 0
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Task Force on Community Preventive Services. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195151091.002.0004
- The paper
- Task Force on Community Preventive Services. (2005). The Guide to Community Preventive Services. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof%3Aoso/9780195151091.002.0004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.