ReviewPharmacoEconomics - open2026
Trial-Based Economic Evaluations Conducted alongside Studies Embedded in Australian Healthcare Services and Programs: A Scoping Review.
Review in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this study was to map the literature and provide an overview of economic evaluations (EEs) conducted alongside studies embedded in Australian healthcare services or programs by: (1) providing a broad overview of the volume, characteristics and types of EEs and (2) examining the subset of EEs impacting older Australians in greater depth including characteristics (type, costs, outcomes, perspectives adopted, time horizon) and quality.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review of full trial-based EEs of studies embedded in Australian healthcare services and programs, published in peer-reviewed journal publications. Medline, Informit, ProQuest Central, Web of Science, Econlit, PsychINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, and the International Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database were searched from inception to May 2025. Quality assessment was conducted using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC-list).
resultsWe identified 88 articles (86 studies) reporting 107 EEs. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) were most common (n = 53, 50%). Most interventions were delivered in ambulatory care settings (n = 41, 47%) and included participants from metropolitan areas (n = 81, 92%). A total of 28 studies (29 comparisons) were with older adults, reporting 38 EEs. Among these, CEAs (n = 16, 42%) and adoption of a health system perspective (n = 11, 29%) were most frequent. Most EEs included intervention costs (n = 25, 86%) and healthcare costs (n = 28, 97%). Most interventions evaluated in CEA and cost-utility analysis were found to be more costly and more effective (n = 16, 43%) or less costly and more effective (n = 15, 41%). The median CHEC-list was 16/19 (IQR 13-17).
conclusionsOur review identified a diverse range of intervention types and evaluation methods, but a relative lack of cost-benefit analyses, despite their value for cross-sector comparisons. Most evaluations were conducted in metropolitan settings and few incorporated broader costs such as aged care, particularly regarding interventions targeting older adults. Future research should prioritize evaluations that include rural and remote populations and adopt broader perspectives, ensuring the full value of interventions is captured to better inform policy and decision-making.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.