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
Review
. 2024 May 14;22(1):41.
doi: 10.1186/s12962-024-00552-1.

An overview of the perspectives used in health economic evaluations

Affiliations
Review

An overview of the perspectives used in health economic evaluations

Manit Sittimart et al. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. .

Abstract

The term 'perspective' in the context of economic evaluations and costing studies in healthcare refers to the viewpoint that an analyst has adopted to define the types of costs and outcomes to consider in their studies. However, there are currently notable variations in terms of methodological recommendations, definitions, and applications of different perspectives, depending on the objective or intended user of the study. This can make it a complex area for stakeholders when interpreting these studies. Consequently, there is a need for a comprehensive overview regarding the different types of perspectives employed in such analyses, along with the corresponding implications of their use. This is particularly important, in the context of low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where practical guidelines may be less well-established and infrastructure for conducting economic evaluations may be more limited. This article addresses this gap by summarising the main types of perspectives commonly found in the literature to a broad audience (namely the patient, payer, health care providers, healthcare sector, health system, and societal perspectives), providing their most established definitions and outlining the corresponding implications of their uses in health economic studies, with examples particularly from LMIC settings. We then discuss important considerations when selecting the perspective and present key arguments to consider when deciding whether the societal perspective should be used. We conclude that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to what perspective should be used and the perspective chosen will be influenced by the context, policymakers'/stakeholders' viewpoints, resource/data availability, and intended use of the analysis. Moving forward, considering the ongoing issues regarding the variation in terminology and practice in this area, we urge that more standardised definitions of the different perspectives and the boundaries between them are further developed to support future studies and guidelines, as well as to improve the interpretation and comparison of health economic evidence.

Keywords: Definition; Economic evaluation; Global health; Health economics; LMIC; Perspective; Societal.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overview of the different perspectives and the variation of included costs within economic evaluations. Y: Included; N: Not included; * The limited societal perspective excludes spillover impacts affecting sectors other than health care whereas the (non-limited) societal perspective includes the spillover impacts on at least one non-health care sector. Note that there is variation in terminology used within the field to describe these different perspectives as well as others not included here. Therefore, it is possible some studies would apply these perspectives differently to what we have outlined

References

    1. Kristensen FB, Husereau D, Huić M, Drummond M, Berger ML, Bond K, et al. Identifying the need for good practices in health technology assessment: summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA. Value Health. 2019;22(1):13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.08.010. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nemzoff C, Ruiz F, Chalkidou K, Mehndiratta A, Guinness L, Cluzeau F, et al. Adaptive health technology assessment to facilitate priority setting in low-and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(4):e004549. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004549. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization. SEA/RC66/R4-Health intervention and technology assessment in support of universal health coverage. WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia; 2013.
    1. Oortwijn W, Jansen M, Baltussen R. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for health benefit package design—part II: a practical guide. Int J Health Policy Manage. 2022;11(10):2327–2336. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baltussen R, Jansen M, Oortwijn W. Evidence-informed deliberative processes for legitimate health benefit package design—part I: conceptual framework. Int J Health Policy Manage. 2022;11(10):2319–2326. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources