TY  - JOUR
PY  - 2016//
TI  - Lack of cost-effectiveness analyses to address Healthy People 2020 priority areas
JO  - American journal of public health
A1  - Neumann, Peter J.
A1  - Farquhar, Megan
A1  - Wilkinson, Colby L.
A1  - Lowry, Mackenzie
A1  - Gold, Marthe
SP  - 2205
EP  - 2207
VL  - 106
IS  - 12
N2  - OBJECTIVES: To examine the extent to which recently published cost-utility analyses (cost-effectiveness analyses using quality-adjusted life-years to measure health benefits) have covered the leading health concerns in the US Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People 2020 report. <br><br>METHODS: We examined data in the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, a database containing 5000 published cost-utility analyses published in the MEDLINE literature through 2014. We focused on US-based cost-utility analyses published from 2011 through 2014 (n = 687). Two reviewers scanned abstracts and met for a consensus on categorization of cost-utility analyses that addressed the specific priorities listed in the 12 Healthy People 2020 areas (n = 120). <br><br>RESULTS: Although 7.3% of recently published cost-utility analyses addressed key clinical preventive services, only about 2% of recently published cost-utility analyses covered each of the following Healthy People 2020 topics: reproductive and sexual health, nutrition/physical activity/obesity, maternal and infant health, and tobacco. Fewer than 1% addressed priorities such as injuries and violence, mental health or substance abuse, environmental quality, and oral health. <br><br>CONCLUSIONS: Few cost-utility analyses have addressed Healthy People 2020 priority areas. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print September 15, 2016: e1-e3. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303361).<p />  <p>Language: en</p>
LA  - en
SN  - 0090-0036
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303361
ID  - ref1
ER  -