The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cost Effectiveness in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Review of the Debates Surrounding Decision Rules
Open accessAbstract
Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is increasingly important in public health decision making, including in low- and middle-income countries. The decision makers’ valuation of a unit of health gain, or ceiling ratio (λ), is important in CEA as the relative value against which acceptability is defined, although values are usually chosen arbitrarily in practice. Reference case estimates for λ are useful to promote consistency, facilitate new developments in decision analysis, compare estimates against benefit-cost ratios from other economic sectors, and explicitly inform decisions about equity in global health budgets.The aim of this article is to discuss values for λ used in practice, including derivation based on affordability expectations (such as $US150 per disabilityadjusted life-year [DALY]), some multiple of gross national income or gross domestic product, and preference-elicitation methods, and explore the implications associated with each approach. The background to the debate is introduced, the theoretical bases of current values are reviewed, and examples are given of their application in practice. Advantages and disadvantages of each method for defining λ are outlined, followed by an exploration of methodological and policy implications.
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
The value of a statistical life: A critical review of market estimates throughout the world
Viscusi, W. K., & Aldy, J. E. (2003) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1023/a:1025598106257 · Cited by 2,135
Cost-effectiveness of HIV/AIDS interventions in Africa: a systematic review of the evidence
Creese, A., Floyd, K., Alban, A., & Guinness, L. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08595-1 · Cited by 394
Cited by
Expanding global access to radiotherapy
Atun, R., Jaffray, D. A., Barton, M. B., Bray, F., Baumann, M., Vikram, B., Hanna, T. P., Knaul, F. M., Lievens, Y., Lui, T. Y. M., et al. (2015) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00222-3 · Cited by 1,112
Cost–effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons
Bertram, M., Lauer, J., De Joncheere, K., Edejer, T., Hutubessy, R., Kieny, M.-P., & Hill, S. (2016) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.15.164418 · Cited by 783
Global disease burden of conditions requiring emergency surgery
Stewart, B., Khanduri, P., McCord, C., Ohene-Yeboah, M., Uranues, S., Vega Rivera, F., & Mock, C. (2014) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.9329 · Cited by 550
Improving the health and welfare of people who live in slums
Lilford, R. J., Oyebode, O., Satterthwaite, D., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Chen, Y.-F., Mberu, B., Watson, S. I., Sartori, J., Ndugwa, R., Caiaffa, W., et al. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)31848-7 · Cited by 305
Costs and cost-effectiveness of malaria control interventions - a systematic review
White, M. T., Conteh, L., Cibulskis, R., & Ghani, A. C. (2011) · Malaria Journal · doi:10.1186/1475-2875-10-337 · Cited by 310
Metadata
- Authors
- Shillcutt, S. D., Walker, D. G., Goodman, C. A., & Mills, A. J.
- Venue
- PharmacoEconomics
- Published
- 2009-11
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 903-917
- ISSN
- 1170-7690 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2028401854
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 22.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Cost Effectiveness in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Review of the Debates Surrounding Decision Rules. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2165/10899580-000000000-00000
- The paper
- Shillcutt, S. D., Walker, D. G., Goodman, C. A., & Mills, A. J. (2009). Cost Effectiveness in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Review of the Debates Surrounding Decision Rules. PharmacoEconomics. https://doi.org/10.2165/10899580-000000000-00000
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.