The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Thresholds for the cost–effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches
Open accessAbstract
Many countries use the cost-effectiveness thresholds recommended by the World Health Organization's Choosing Interventions that are Cost-Effective project (WHO-CHOICE) when evaluating health interventions. This project sets the threshold for cost-effectiveness as the cost of the intervention per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted less than three times the country's annual gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Highly cost-effective interventions are defined as meeting a threshold per DALY averted of once the annual GDP per capita. We argue that reliance on these thresholds reduces the value of cost-effectiveness analyses and makes such analyses too blunt to be useful for most decision-making in the field of public health. Use of these thresholds has little theoretical justification, skirts the difficult but necessary ranking of the relative values of locally-applicable interventions and omits any consideration of what is truly affordable. The WHO-CHOICE thresholds set such a low bar for cost-effectiveness that very few interventions with evidence of efficacy can be ruled out. The thresholds have little value in assessing the trade-offs that decision-makers must confront. We present alternative approaches for applying cost-effectiveness criteria to choices in the allocation of health-care resources.
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In a separate health economics analysis (unpublished), we found that single-dose HPV vaccination with catch-up vaccination in girls aged 11–20 years could be cost-effective under the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness threshold of one-times gross domestic product per capita.”
From Evidence-based impact projections of single-dose human papillomavirus vaccination in India: a modelling study (2022) · cites this paper as [30]
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
Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes
Drummond, M. E., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198529446.001.0001 · Cited by 13,648
The World Health Report 2002 - Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life
Available, N. A. N. (2003) · Education for Health · doi:10.1080/1357628031000116808 · Cited by 6,078
Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes
Wilson, S. (1987) · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.41.4.355-a · Cited by 4,312
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice
Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (1996) · Cited by 1,920
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement
Husereau, D., Drummond, M., Petrou, S., Carswell, C., Moher, D., Greenberg, D., Augustovski, F., Briggs, A. H., Mauskopf, J., Loder, E., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f1049 · Cited by 1,776
Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd ed
Adamiak, G. T. (2006) · PubMed Central · Cited by 953
The Value of Life and the Rise in Health Spending
Hall, R. E., & Jones, C. I. (2007) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.122.1.39 · Cited by 924
Willingness to Pay for a Quality-adjusted Life Year: In Search of a Standard
Hirth, R. A., Chernew, M. E., Miller, E., Fendrick, A. M., & Weissert, W. G. (2000) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x0002000310 · Cited by 850
Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses?
Thorlund, K., Devereaux, P. J., Wetterslev, J., Guyatt, G. H., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Thabane, L., Gluud, L. L., Als-Nielsen, B. E. T., & Gluud, C. N. (2008) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyn179 · Cited by 834
Robinson, R. (1993) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.307.6907.793 · Cited by 819
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women
on behalf of the Scientific Advisory Board of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis (ESCEO) and the Committees of Scientific Advisors and National Societies of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF), Kanis, J. A., Cooper, C., Rizzoli, R., & Reginster, J.-Y. (2019) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-018-4704-5 · Cited by 1,900
Cost–effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons
Bertram, M., Lauer, J. A., de Joncheere, K., Edejer, T. T.-T., Hutubessy, R. C. W., Kiény, M.-P., & Hill, S. R. (2016) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.15.164418 · Cited by 789
A guide to aid the selection of diagnostic tests
Kosack, C., Page, A., & Klatser, P. R. (2017) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.16.187468 · Cited by 417
Cameron, D. A., Ubels, J., & Norström, F. (2018) · Global Health Action · doi:10.1080/16549716.2018.1447828 · Cited by 383
Vaccine impact: Benefits for human health
Doherty, M. T., Buchy, P., Standaert, B. A., Giaquinto, C., & Prado-Cohrs, D. (2016) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.10.025 · Cited by 291
Metadata
- Authors
- Marseille, E., Larson, B., Kazi, D. S., Kahn, J. G., & Rosen, S.
- Affiliations
- Health Strategies International, 555 Fifty-ninth Street, Oakland, California, 94609, United States of America (USA).
- Boston University (US)
- San Francisco General Hospital (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- Marseille, Elliot
- Venue
- Bulletin of the World Health Organization
- Publisher
- WHO Press
- Published
- 2014-12-15
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 118-124
- ISSN
- 0042-9686 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4339959
- OpenAlex
- W2133104890
- Cited by
- 851
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 93 · 2021: 101 · 2020: 100 · 2019: 105 · 2018: 76 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 18
- FWCI
- 112.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Bulletin of the World Health Organization (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (P30MH062246)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA015612)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Global Health Care Issues
- Keywords
- cost-effectiveness threshold, WHO-CHOICE, disability-adjusted life years, GDP per capita, healthcare resource allocation, public health decision-making, affordability, cost-effectiveness analysis
- MeSH terms
- Cost-Benefit Analysis, Developing Countries, Female, Health Priorities, Humans, Pregnancy, Syphilis, Global Health, World Health Organization, HIV Infections, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Benchmarking, Anti-Retroviral Agents, Insecticide-Treated Bednets, Gross Domestic Product
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
