Is cost-effectiveness analysis preferred to severity of disease as the main guiding principle in priority setting in resource poor settings? The case of Uganda
Open Access
- 8 January 2004
- journal article
- Published by Springer Nature in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
- Vol. 2 (1) , 1
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7547-2-1
Abstract
Several studies carried out to establish the relative preference of cost-effectiveness of interventions and severity of disease as criteria for priority setting in health have shown a strong preference for severity of disease. These preferences may differ in contexts of resource scarcity, as in developing countries, yet information is limited on such preferences in this context.Keywords
This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- The World Health Report 2002 - Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy LifePublished by Taylor & Francis ,2003
- Puzzling out prioritiesBMJ, 1998
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in a Setting of Budget Constraints — Is It Equitable?New England Journal of Medicine, 1996
- Distributing scarce livers: The moral reasoning of the general publicSocial Science & Medicine, 1996
- Maximizing health benefits vs egalitarianism: An Australian survey of health issuesSocial Science & Medicine, 1995
- Patients' views of priority setting in health care: an interview survey in one practiceBMJ, 1995
- The relevance of health state after treatment in prioritising between different patients.Journal of Medical Ethics, 1993
- Oregon's methods. Did cost-effectiveness analysis fail?JAMA, 1991
- Priority setting: lessons from OregonThe Lancet, 1991
- Priority setting and economic appraisal: Whose priorities—the community or the economist?Social Science & Medicine, 1988