Cited by 34Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMental Health Treatment and AccessEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression

Open access
Duevel, Juliane Andrea, Hasemann, Lena, Peña-Longobardo, Luz María, Rodríguez-Sánchez, Beatriz, Aranda-Reneo, Isaac, Oliva-Moreno, Juan, López-Bastida, Julio, Greiner, Wolfgang·2020·Health Economics Review

Abstract

Background: Depressive disorders are associated with a high burden of disease. However, due to the burden posed by the disease on not only the sufferers, but also on their relatives, there is an ongoing debate about which costs to include and, hence, which perspective should be applied. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to examine whether the change between healthcare payer and societal perspective leads to different conclusions of cost-utility analyses in the case of depression. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify economic evaluations of interventions in depression, launched on Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Registry of the Tufts University using a ten-year time horizon (2008–2018). In a two-stepped screening process, cost-utility studies were selected by means of specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, relevant findings was extracted and, if not fully stated, calculated by the authors of this work. Results: Overall, 53 articles with 92 complete economic evaluations, reporting costs from healthcare payer/provider and societal perspective, were identified. More precisely, 22 estimations (24%) changed their results regarding the cost-effectiveness quadrant when the societal perspective was included. Furthermore, 5% of the ICURs resulted in cost-effectiveness regarding the chosen threshold (2% of them became dominant) when societal costs were included. However, another four estimations (4%) showed the opposite result: these interventions were no longer cost-effective after the inclusion of societal costs. Conclusions: Summarising the disparities in results and applied methods, the results show that societal costs might alter the conclusions in cost-utility analyses. Hence, the relevance of the perspectives chosen should be taken into account when carrying out an economic evaluation. This systematic review demonstrates that the results of economic evaluations can be affected by different methods available for estimating non-healthcare costs.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13561-020-00288-7

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duevel, J. A., Hasemann, L., Peña-Longobardo, L. M., Rodríguez-Sánchez, B., Aranda-Reneo, I., Oliva-Moreno, J., López-Bastida, J., & Greiner, W.
Affiliations
  • Bielefeld University (DE)
  • University of Castilla-La Mancha (ES)
  • Camilo José Cela University (ES)
Venue
Health Economics Review
Published
2020-09-22
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
32-32
ISSN
2191-1991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3088578057
Cited by
34
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5
FWCI
0.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Economics Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld (Universität Bielefeld) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
H2020 European Research Council (779312)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
depression, societal perspective, healthcare payer perspective, cost-utility analysis, cost-effectiveness, cost-effectiveness threshold

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