Economics of prevention: the public health research agenda.
ABSTRACT Public health policy makers often focus their attention on the economic evaluation methods (eg, cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses) because of their interest in the economic returns from investment in prevention programs. This article presents a case for the broader applicability of economic theories and methods in development of public health prevention research issues. Public financing, delivery, and regulatory policies are often advocated and used to correct the imperfections in the market for preventive health services. A proper understanding of the incentives and constraints faced by individual agents in the market, however, can improve the effectiveness of these policies in achieving the prevention targets. In developing a research agenda, economics can play a more substantial role beyond the traditional economic evaluation research.
- SourceAvailable from: B. Suresh Lal[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The study find out that the common diseases general fever, malaria, typhoid, diarrhea, anemia and jaundice etc are more common in tribal areas. Majority respondents are suffering from fever (35%) followed by malaria (20%), typhoid (15%), diarrhea (12%), anemia (8%) and jaundice (10%). This study examines majority sufferers are low and middle income group. Nearly, 40 percent sample respondents had spent between Rs.150 to 200 per visit (consultation of the doctor and medicine) and 35 percent respondents had spent Rs.100 to 150 per visit. As a result these diseases causing heavy financial burden for treatment and loss of employment to the tribals.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The economic benefits of healthcare research require study so that appropriate resources can be allocated to this research, particularly in developing countries. As a first step, we performed a systematic review to identify the methods used to assess the economic impact of healthcare research, and the outcomes. An electronic search was conducted in relevant databases using a combination of specific keywords. In addition, 21 relevant Web sites were identified. The initial search yielded 8,416 articles. After studying titles, abstracts, and full texts, 18 articles were included in the analysis. Eleven other reports were found on Web sites. We found that the outcomes assessed as healthcare research payback included direct cost-savings, cost reductions in healthcare delivery systems, benefits from commercial advancement, and outcomes associated with improved health status. Two methods were used to study healthcare research payback: macro-economic studies, which examine the relationship between research studies and economic outcome at the aggregated level, and case studies, which examine specific research projects to assess economic impact. Our study shows that different methods and outcomes can be used to assess the economic impacts of healthcare research. There is no unique methodological approach for the economic evaluation of such research. In our systematic search we found no research that had evaluated the economic return of research in low and middle income countries. We therefore recommend a consensus on practical guidelines at international level on the basis of more comprehensive methodologies (such as Canadian Academic of Health Science and payback frameworks) in order to build capacity, arrange for necessary informative infrastructures and promote necessary skills for economic evaluation studies.Health Research Policy and Systems 03/2010; 8:6. DOI:10.1186/1478-4505-8-6 · 1.86 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: An essential function of public health is to conduct research and in Missouri, a research agenda was initiated to promote the health and well being of women and children. In 2005, a survey was emailed to 180 maternal and child health (MCH) researchers throughout the state, with 130 responding for a 72.2% response rate. These individuals were asked to select research priorities out of a list of 130 research agenda items, identify personal areas of expertise, and to recommend new research topics. Results focused on identifying research priorities and research experts. The first, of the five leading research priorities, was researching disparities in terms of age, race, ethnicity, and gender, regarding sexually transmitted diseases, chronic disease, birth outcomes, prenatal care, access to care, childhood exposure to lead, immunizations and vaccinations, mental health, substance abuse, and oral health. The four remaining, of the top five specific research priorities, in order of priority, included (2) reducing barriers to health care access, (3) constructing research ecologically, (4) increasing access to oral health care for children, and (5) reducing the prevalence of children who are at-risk for being overweight. Of the 130 respondents, 83.1% reported at least one area of expertise, with a mean of 7.4 areas of expertise per respondent (range 0-41). Forty percent of the respondents reported health care access as an area of expertise, followed by school health, community development, family support, and pre/post natal care (38.5%, 36.2%, 30.0%, 28.5%, and 26.9%) respectively. Interestingly, only 17.7% of the respondents reported disparities as their area of expertise. The goal of moving innovations towards changes in practice can only happen when resources are available to assess innovations and communities are ready to implement those innovations. The prioritization of this MCH research agenda, prioritized by a community of MCH researchers with expertise in conducting MCH related research, is the first step towards changes in practice, ultimately leading to improvements in the health of women and children in Missouri.Maternal and Child Health Journal 10/2007; 11(5):511-6. DOI:10.1007/s10995-007-0187-2 · 2.24 Impact Factor