Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included evaluations

From: Comparing health gains, costs and cost-effectiveness of 100s of interventions in Australia and New Zealand: an online interactive league table

 

Australia

New Zealand

Total

 

N

%

 

%

 

%

Total evaluations

318

 

66

 

384

 

Year published

 2010–2014

247

77.7%

5

7.6%

252

65.6%

 2015–2018

71

22.3%

61

92.4%

132

34.4%

Base-year in model

 2000–04

207

65.1%

0

0%

207

53.9%

 2005–09

40

12.6%

0

0%

40

10.4%

 2010–15

71

22.3%

66

100%

137

35.7%

Perspective

 Health sector/Health system

143

45.0%

64

97.0%

207

53.9%

 Government

4

1.3%

0

0%

4

1.0%

 Multiple (Health sector, Government, Patient, Societal)

26

8.2%

0

0%

26

6.8%

 Societal (or limited societal)

30

9.4%

0

0%

30

7.8%

 Not specified^

115

36.4%

2

3.0%

117

30.5%

Time horizon

 10y to < lifetime

13

4.1%

0

0%

13

3.4%

 Lifetime

95

95.9%

66

100%

371

96.6%

Discount rate (annual)

 3%

318

100%

66

100%

384

100%

 Other

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Degree of targeting

 Population-wide

112

35.2%

48

72.7%

160

41.7%

 Partially targeted

180

56.6%

14

21.2%

194

50.5%

 Targeted

26

8.2%

4

6.1%

30

7.8%

Intervention duration

 One-off or up to 1 year

64

20.1%

16

24.2%

80

20.8%

 1–5 years

9

2.8%

1

1.5%

10

2.6%

 6–20 years

20

6.3%

1

1.5%

21

5.5%

 Persistent

172

54.3%

48

72.7%

220

57.3%

 Not specified

53

16.7%

0

0%

53

13.8%

Type of intervention

 Prevention

298

93.7%

57

86.4%

355

92.4%

 Treatment

20

6.3%

4

6.1%

24

6.3%

 Missing

0

0%

5

7.6%

5

1.3%

Type of comparator+

 Current practice (Business-as-usual)

137

43.1%

30

45.5%

167

43.5%

 Do nothing

111

34.9%

32

48.5%

143

37.2%

 Other

2

0.6%

3

4.5%

5

1.3%

 Not specified

68

21.4%

1

1.5%

69

18.0%

Domain

 Cancer

27

8.5%

8

12.1%

35

9.1%

 Alcohol

16

5.0%

0

0%

16

4.2%

 Cannabis or other illicit drugs

5

1.6%

0

0%

5

1.6%

 Communicable disease

7

2.2%

5

7.6%

12

3.1%

 Cardiovascular disease

94

29.6%

1

1.5%

95

24.7%

 Diabetes

13

4.1%

0

0%

13

3.4%

 Diet

43

13.5%

0

0%

43

11.2%

 Injury

1

0.3%

5

7.6%

6

1.6%

 Mental illness

8

2.5%

0

0%

8

2.1%

 Other NCD

26

8.2%

0

0%

26

6.8%

 Overweight & obesity

45

14.2%

1

1.5%

46

12.0%

 Physical activity

16

5.0%

0

0%

16

4.2%

 Salt (dietary)

3

0.9%

32

48.5%

35

9.1%

 Tobacco

14

4.4%

14

21.2%

28

7.3%

Health gain

HALYs per 1000 total population

  < 0.10

122

28.4%

8

12.1%

130

33.9%

 0.10–1

86

27.0%

2

3.0%

88

22.9%

 1–10

77

24.2%

30

45.5%

107

27.9%

  > 10

28

8.8%

22

33.3%

50

13.0%

 Missing

5

1.6%

4

6.1%

9

2.3%

HALYs per person in target population

  < 01

28

8.8%

23

34.9%

51

13.3%

 01–099

0

0%

20

30.3%

20

5.2%

 0.1–0.99

1

0.3%

3

4.5%

4

1.0%

 Missing

289

90.9%

20

30.3%

309

80.5%

Incremental health expenditure

Net cost* per 1000 total population

  < US$0 [Cost saving]

103

32.4%

46

69.7%

149

38.8%

 US$0 to $10,000

99

31.2%

9

13.6%

108

28.1%

 Cost > US$10,000

67

21.1%

8

12.1%

75

19.5%

 Missing

49

15.4%

3

4.6%

52

13.5%

Net cost* per target population

  < US$0 [Cost saving]

1

0.3%

32

48.5%

33

8.6%

 US$0 to $1000

24

7.6%

10

15.2%

34

8.9%

 Cost > US$1000

4

1.3%

2

3.0%

6

1.6%

 Missing

289

90.9%

22

33.3%

311

81.0%

COST per HALY or Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

 Cost saving

97

30.5%

47

71.2%

144

37.5%

 US$0 to $50,000 per HALY

127

39.9%

17

25.8%

144

37.5%

  > US$50,000 per HALY

82

25.8%

1

1.5%

83

21.6%

 Dominated

3

0.9%

0

0%

3

0.8%

 Missing

9

2.8%

1

1.5%

10

2.6%

  1. *2016 US$
  2. ^ Most evaluations in which the perspective is listed as “Not specified” are from the original ACE-prevention report. According to the methodology stated, a “health sector perspective” is adopted for all evaluations unless non-health sector impacts were deemed important and then captured through a sensitivity analysis
  3.  + Most evaluations reporting “Do nothing” as comparator used the current status in the absence of the intervention as comparator, rather than stripping back current interventions in place. Many studies in which the comparator was not stated in fact also appeared to have the current status (or no intervention) as comparator
  4. Most studies reported results for HALYs and costs for either a total population perspective (e.g. for all eligible people in Australia) or a per capita perspective — but not both (although we were able to sometimes calculate both if sufficient data were reported in the paper)