Elsevier

Health Policy

Volume 93, Issues 2–3, December 2009, Pages 85-92
Health Policy

Review
Methods for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions: Key challenges and recommendations

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.07.012Get rights and content

Abstract

Rationale

Increasing attention is being given to the evaluation of public health interventions. Methods for the economic evaluation of clinical interventions are well established. In contrast, the economic evaluation of public health interventions raises additional methodological challenges. The paper identifies these challenges and provides suggestions for overcoming them.

Methods

To identify the methodological challenges, five reviews that explored the economics of public health were consulted. From these, four main methodological challenges for the economic evaluation of public health interventions were identified. A review of empirical studies was conducted to explore how the methodological challenges had been approached in practice and an expert workshop convened to discuss how they could be tackled in the future.

Results

The empirical review confirmed that the four methodological challenges were important. In all, 154 empirical studies were identified, covering areas as diverse as alcohol, drug use, obesity and physical activity, and smoking. However, the four methodological challenges were handled badly, or ignored in most of the studies reviewed.

Discussion

The empirical review offered few insights into ways of addressing the methodological challenges. The expert workshop suggested a number of ways forward for overcoming the methodological challenges.

Conclusion

Although the existing empirical literature offers few insights on how to respond to these challenges, expert opinion suggests a number of ways forward. Much of what is suggested here has not yet been applied in practice, and there is an urgent need both for pilot studies and more methodological research.

Introduction

Within the UK and elsewhere, increasing attention has been given to the evaluation of public health interventions. The Wanless Reports highlighted the need to consider the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions [1], [2]. Since 2005, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has produced guidance in the public health field for the UK National Health Service. The generation of good quality evidence on cost-effectiveness is essential if those commissioning services are to make informed decisions.

Methods for the economic evaluation of healthcare interventions have existed for several years, but these have mainly been applied to more narrowly defined ‘clinical’ interventions, such as drugs, devices and medical procedures. In addition, the methods for the evaluation of screening and immunisation programmes are fairly well developed. Although there are a number of features of these programmes which require particular attention, for example, whether or not to evaluate vaccines using a static or a dynamic approach to model the impact of the spread of infection, the methods are established and are similar to those used for clinical interventions [3]. By comparison, economic evaluations of other, broader, public health interventions are scarce and the methods uncertain [4].

Initially, five reviews that explored the economics of public health were consulted [1], [2], [5], [6], [7]. McDaid and Needle [5] undertook a systematic review of the empirical approaches used to assess the cost-effectiveness of a broad range of public health interventions. West et al. [6] undertook a rapid review of a selected range of public health interventions and identified key lessons, barriers and gaps within the evidence-base. Two reports by Wanless [1], [2] examined how resources might be best used to secure the health of the whole population. And, finally, an Australian Report [7] examined the returns on investment in public health in a selected range of public health interventions. From these, key insights into the main methodological challenges for the economic evaluation of public health interventions were obtained.

Public health interventions generate very broad costs and benefits and are often directed at populations or communities rather than specific individuals. Therefore, it is relatively difficult to undertake randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Secondly, the broad nature of the costs and benefits suggests that an intersectoral approach is required in order to identify them. Thirdly, given their broad nature, standard approaches to valuing health gain (e.g. in quality-adjusted life-years, QALYs) may be inadequate. Finally, a particular feature of many of these interventions is a concern with health inequalities. Standard economic evaluation methods focus on efficiency (i.e. the maximization of health gain) rather than on equity (i.e. the distribution of health gains). Accordingly, the evaluation of public health interventions may need to pay more attention to equity considerations.

Section snippets

Methods

The four methodological challenges for assessing the cost-effectiveness of public health interventions were identified and are described in more detail below. Following this, the methods used for the review of the empirical literature are described. The empirical review focused on how the methodological challenges had been addressed in practice.

Results

1264 NHS EED abstracts were identified for possible inclusion in the review of the empirical literature. After screening the abstracts, 154 unique abstracts were retained for review (Table 1). A full list of the studies is available in the main project report, which is available via www.york.ac.uk/phrc.

The studies related to the following years: 27 in the year 2000, 37 in 2001, 34 in 2002, 29 in 2003, 24 in the 2004 and 3 in 2005. The low number of studies for 2005 reflects a time lag in

Discussion

The review of empirical studies shows that economic evaluation has been applied in a wide range of public health areas. However, overall there were few insights gained from the empirical review as to how to address the methodological challenges. Nevertheless, expert opinion suggested a number of ways forward as discussed below.

Conclusions

The economic evaluation of public health interventions presents four main methodological challenges. The existing empirical literature is very disappointing, offering few insights on how to respond to these challenges. This severely limits the usefulness of economic evaluation in this field. Despite the lack of insights provided by existing studies, consideration of the theoretical literature and expert opinion suggests a number of ways forward. Much of what is suggested here has not yet been

Acknowledgments

This report was undertaken as part of the Public Health Research Consortium (PHRC). The Consortium is funded by the Department of Health Policy Research Programme. Thanks are due to the attendees at a workshop, held in York on August 4, 2006, for their helpful comments and suggestions namely, Andrew Briggs, Janine Hale, Jacqueline Mallender, Christine McGuire, Miranda Mugford, Bash Naidoo, Mark Petticrew and Phil Shackley (unable to attend). Further useful comments and suggestions were made by

References (35)

  • P. West et al.

    A critique of the application of cost-effectiveness analysis to public health

    (2003)
  • Department of Health and Ageing

    Returns on investment in public health: an epidemiological and economic analysis

    (2003)
  • M.F. Drummond et al.

    Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes

    (2005)
  • A. Lazaro

    Theoretical arguments for the discounting of health consequences: where do we go from here?

    Pharmacoeconomics

    (2002)
  • K. Claxton et al.

    Discounting and cost-effectiveness in NICE—stepping back to sort out a confusion (Editorial)

    Health Economics

    (2006)
  • H. Gravelle et al.

    Discounting in economic evaluations: stepping forward to optimal decision rules

    Health Economics

    (2007)
  • K. Claxton et al.

    Discounting and decision rules in the economic evaluation of health care technologies

  • Cited by (0)

    View full text