The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic review of the use and value of computer simulation modelling in population health and health care delivery
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of the review was to evaluate the extent, quality and value of computer simulation modelling in population health and health care delivery. METHODS: A narrative systematic review was carried out of world literature from 1980 to 1999, searching Medline, INSPEC, Embase, HealthSTAR, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, MathSci, INFORMS Online and SIGLE databases, and researchers in the field were contacted. Papers were included if they contained a computer simulation model of individuals in a stochastic system and the topic or setting related to population health or health service delivery. RESULTS: A total of 182 papers met the inclusion criteria. Simulation modelling has been undertaken in a wide range of health care topic areas, including hospital scheduling and organization, communicable disease, screening, costs of illness and economic evaluation. However, the quality of published papers was variable and few reported on the outcomes of implementation of models, so that the value of modelling could not be assessed. CONCLUSION: Simulation modelling is a powerful method for modelling both small and large populations to inform policy makers in the provision of health care. It has been applied to a wide variety of health care problems. Although the number of modelling papers has grown substantially over recent years, further research is required to assess the value of modelling.
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
Cites
Health and Economic Implications of a Work-Site Smoking-Cessation Program: A Simulation Analysis
Warner, K. E., Smith, R. J., Smith, D. G., & Fries, B. E. (1996) · Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1097/00043764-199610000-00008 · Cited by 102
Cited by
Discrete event simulation for performance modelling in health care: a review of the literature
Günal, M. M., & Pidd, M. (2010) · Journal of Simulation · doi:10.1057/jos.2009.25 · Cited by 560
A taxonomy of model structures for economic evaluation of health technologies
Brennan, A., Chick, S. E., & Davies, R. (2006) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.1148 · Cited by 555
Simulation modelling in mental health: a systematic review
Long, K. M., & Meadows, G. N. (2018) · Journal of Simulation · doi:10.1057/s41273-017-0062-0 · Cited by 49
Moretto, N., Comans, T. A., Chang, A. T., O’Leary, S. P., Osborne, S., Carter, H. E., Smith, D., Cavanagh, T., Blond, D., & Raymer, M. (2019) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-019-0923-1 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Fone, D., Hollinghurst, S., Temple, M., Round, A., Lester, N., Weightman, A., Roberts, K., Coyle, E., Bevan, G., & Palmer, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-12-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 325-335
- ISSN
- 0943-1853 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3842
- 1741-3850
- OpenAlex
- W2131853941
- Cited by
- 553
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.24
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Systematic review of the use and value of computer simulation modelling in population health and health care delivery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/pubmed/fdg075
- The paper
- Fone, D., Hollinghurst, S., Temple, M., Round, A., Lester, N., Weightman, A., Roberts, K., Coyle, E., Bevan, G., & Palmer, S. (2003). Systematic review of the use and value of computer simulation modelling in population health and health care delivery. Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdg075
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.
