Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jan;36(1):8-19.
doi: 10.1177/0272989X15583266. Epub 2015 Apr 23.

Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Tutorial

Affiliations

Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Tutorial

Miqdad Asaria et al. Med Decis Making. 2016 Jan.

Abstract

Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis (DCEA) is a framework for incorporating health inequality concerns into the economic evaluation of health sector interventions. In this tutorial, we describe the technical details of how to conduct DCEA, using an illustrative example comparing alternative ways of implementing the National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). The 2 key stages in DCEA are 1) modeling social distributions of health associated with different interventions, and 2) evaluating social distributions of health with respect to the dual objectives of improving total population health and reducing unfair health inequality. As well as describing the technical methods used, we also identify the data requirements and the social value judgments that have to be made. Finally, we demonstrate the use of sensitivity analyses to explore the impacts of alternative modeling assumptions and social value judgments.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness analysis; economic evaluation; efficiency; equality; equity; fairness; health distribution; health inequality; inequality measures; opportunity cost; social value judgments; social welfare functions; tradeoff.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Baseline health distribution.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) uptake distribution by strategy; and (B) colonoscopy uptake distribution.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) Health compared to no screening (per million of population invited for screening); and (B) health compared to standard screening (per million of population invited for screening).
Figure 4
Figure 4
(A) Sensitivity to level of relative inequality aversion; and (B) sensitivity to level of absolute inequality aversion.

References

    1. Asaria M, Cookson R, Griffin S. Incorporating health inequality impacts into cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Culyer A, ed. Encyclopedia of Health Economics. San Diego: Elsevier; 2014:22–6.
    1. Asaria M, Griffin S, Cookson R, Whyte S, Tappenden P. Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of health care programmes: a methodological case study of the UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Health Econ [Internet]. 2014. May 2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24798212. Accessed 7 April 2015. - PubMed
    1. Weller D. Evaluation of the 3rd round of the English bowel cancer screening Pilot Report to the NHS Cancer Screening Programmes [Internet]. 2009. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/bowel/pilot-3rd-round-evaluation.pdf. Accessed 7 April 2015.
    1. Whyte S, Stevens J. Re-appraisal of the options for colorectal cancer screening Report for the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. 2011. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/bowel/scharr-full-report-summary-20120.... Accessed 7 April 2015.
    1. Tappenden P, Chilcott J, Eggington S, Patnick J, Sakai H, Karnon J. Option appraisal of population-based colorectal cancer screening programmes in England. Gut [Internet]. 2007;56(5):677–84. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1942136&tool=p.... Accessed 7 April 2015. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types