ライフサイエンスコーパス: cost-effectiveness

1 ross a variety of clinical sample types, and cost-effectiveness.

2 atient compliance and convenience as well as cost-effectiveness.

3 ectiveness and superior to ISBCS in terms of cost-effectiveness.

4 he low-risk programme typically lessened the cost-effectiveness.

5 Here, we present the cost-effectiveness.

6 per capita gross domestic product, to define cost-effectiveness.

7 capable of prolonged dosing and explored its cost-effectiveness.

8 and any reduction in PrEP cost would improve cost-effectiveness.

9 coverage markedly reduced DALYs averted and cost-effectiveness.

10 ssues while maintaining their properties and cost-effectiveness.

11 systems to confirm these findings and study cost-effectiveness.

12 ents will allow for greater certainty in its cost-effectiveness.

13 evels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness.

14 cemic change, mortality, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness.

15 de; additionally, we address aspects such as cost-effectiveness.

16 h, quality of life, disease progression, and cost-effectiveness.

17 and safety, as well as comparative costs and cost-effectiveness.

18 The cost-effectiveness analyses were done from a health-care

19 When performing QoL or cost-effectiveness analyses, it is important to consider

20 ta by intention to treat, and also performed cost-effectiveness analyses.

21 y collected clinical data and can be used in cost-effectiveness analyses.

22 We then performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing LA-DAAS to DAA alo

23 Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrates that millions (

24 Cost-effectiveness analysis is an important tool for inf

25 The cost-effectiveness analysis of the reference patient und

26 The Bayesian Cost-Effectiveness Analysis package and the Sheffield Ac

27 Cost-effectiveness analysis quantifies value in healthca

28 We conducted a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the current diagn

29 For this reason, we used cost-effectiveness analysis to gauge the efficacy of a p

30 We did a cost-effectiveness analysis using meta-analysis and indi

31 to make economic evaluation methods (such as cost-effectiveness analysis) an effective component of v

32 s improvisation to increase its sensitivity, cost effectiveness and quantification so that it becomes

33 ty of established diagnostics with the ease, cost effectiveness and speed of isothermal amplification

34 ched in the United States, and its long-term cost-effectiveness and budget impact are uncertain.

35 atistics to measure, report, and analyze the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of our interventions

36 Further research is needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and impact of model implementation in

37 s regimen (in the clinic or home-based), its cost-effectiveness and long-term safety.

38 d government resources they must demonstrate cost-effectiveness and positive societal benefit.

39 ttitudes, satisfaction and behaviour change; cost-effectiveness and potential untoward effects of dig

40 and advocacy, aimed at improving the uptake, cost-effectiveness and routine implementation of evidenc

41 We used WHO cost-effectiveness and strategic planning (WHO-CHOICE) m

42 , environment, clinical measures, lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and treatment burden.

43 plore the GHG emissions abatement potential, cost effectiveness, and enabling factors of implementing

44 potential, treatment availability and costs, cost-effectiveness, and availability of other preventive

45 ications, patient reported outcomes (PROMs), cost-effectiveness, and budget impact.

46 ch should focus on operational implications, cost-effectiveness, and context (Asia versus Africa; eme

47 ts excellent reproducibility, high accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and labor-saving operation.

48 Routinely reporting the costs, effectiveness, and benefits of psychological inte

49 We used the model to estimate the costs, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of differen

50 long-term safety; antimicrobial resistance; cost-effectiveness; and risk-benefit.

51 m outcomes of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are awaited.

52 atopic diseases, their conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness are extremely variable.

53 as critical for obtaining optimal vision and cost-effectiveness, as is long-term follow-up and adhere

54 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral ra

55 r year (around 20% of MSM) would improve the cost-effectiveness, averting 78.0% HIV infections and ad

56 We assessed cost-effectiveness between cohorts of transplant recipie

57 Robotics can surpass laparoscopy in cost-effectiveness by achieving certain thresholds in QO

58 roperties, absence of treatment requirement, cost-effectiveness (c.a. 1 euro /Kg), and easiness in th

59 Cost effectiveness can increase up to 13-fold when spati

60 We aimed to estimate clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness (CE), and budgetary impact (BI) of HC

61 e to its simple readout process and improved cost-effectiveness compared to existing digital bioassay

62 investigate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness compared with a noninvasive approach.

63 e of these transportation constraints, their cost-effectiveness compared with land-based transportati

64 jective, we evaluated antibacterial envelope cost-effectiveness compared with standard-of-care infect

65 tion strategies providing health benefit and cost-effectiveness contained between nine (Seattle) and

66 reductions in TB incidence, and incremental cost effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year

67 Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness, coverage, defaulting, death, length

68 ould be cost-effective, even under stringent cost-effectiveness criteria when accounting for setting-

69 Cost-effectiveness decreased with presumed diminished ef

70 Sensitivity analysis indicated that cost-effectiveness depends on diversion program particip

71 cal energy storage applications due to their cost-effectiveness, environmental friendliness, intrinsi

72 Cost-effectiveness estimates showed an incremental cost-

73 We aimed to provide updated cost-effectiveness estimates to inform national decision

74 al studies including head-to-head trials and cost-effectiveness evaluation are still warranted.

75 ource utilization data will be important for cost-effectiveness evaluations of RSV interventions in p

76 d is defensible on the basis of clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence.

77 thesis, LDG provides many advantages such as cost-effectiveness, fast electron mobility, mask-free, g

78 enarios compared with the WHO thresholds for cost-effectiveness for Nepal.

79 We assessed cost-effectiveness from the health sector perspective of

80 rtality, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness had sparse data availability that pre

81 Thus, we assessed the potential cost-effectiveness, health gains, and effects on health

82 ions, thanks to its compactness, simplicity, cost-effectiveness, implementation easiness and high sen

83 l management, but definitive evidence of its cost-effectiveness in rheumatology is awaited.

84 bitors reduces ischemic events; however, the cost-effectiveness in statin-treated patients with recen

85 ity-adjusted life year was used to determine cost-effectiveness, in alignment with the American Colle

86 s, but evidence supporting its frequency and cost-effectiveness is limited.

87 ctomies, but the impact on overall costs and cost-effectiveness is unknown.

88 ories and improve clinical outcomes, but its cost-effectiveness is unknown.

89 A cost-effectiveness model leveraging patient-level data f

90 sease progression and treatment (hepatitis C cost-effectiveness model: HEP-CE).

91 Cost-effectiveness modeling can be used to determine the

92 A dynamic transmission and cost-effectiveness models were adapted to the UK.

93 curve to compare the abatement potential and cost effectiveness of both utility and wider opportuniti

94 We used the Cost Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications (CEP

95 We compared cost effectiveness of three common population estimation

96 The projected cost effectiveness of TTT differed substantially by stat

97 objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of (18)F-choline PET/multiparametric

98 st productivity (health-related) savings and cost-effectiveness of 2 policy scenarios: (1) implementa

99 ase, quality-adjusted life-years, costs, and cost-effectiveness of 3 sugar-sweetened beverage tax des

100 We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative shared care model

101 We sought to assess the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of a jail diversion program for low-l

102 IHD burden and health equity, as well as the cost-effectiveness of a national ban of iTFA in Australi

103 ing in the evaluation of the effects and the cost-effectiveness of a risk-adapted CRC screening strat

104 We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a very brief (5-minute) pedometer-

105 settings treat with FLU monotherapy, and the cost-effectiveness of adding 5FC to FLU is uncertain.

106 We aimed to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of adjunctive sertraline in adults wi

107 We aimed to study the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in the surg

108 The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antimicrobial locks for the preven

109 transition microsimulation model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery versus BMT for p

110 ons model to examine the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of baseline genotype compared to no b

111 We examined the cost-effectiveness of both preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP

112 We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib in the second-line se

113 ions about the quality, appropriateness, and cost-effectiveness of care in different areas.

114 Few studies to-date have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of checklist use.

115 as a case study, we assessed the incremental cost-effectiveness of continuing PCV use.

116 The simplicity and cost-effectiveness of CRISPR technology have made high-t

117 The cost-effectiveness of CT angiography in patients with mi

118 Purpose To evaluate cost-effectiveness of CT angiography in the detection of

119 This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of dalbavancin versus standard of car

120 el to estimate the costs, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of different CDI treatment regimens r

121 We aimed to model and assess the cost-effectiveness of dual testing during antenatal care

122 to assess clinical and economic outcomes and cost-effectiveness of epidemic control strategies in Kwa

123 The cost-effectiveness of FLU+5FC vs FLU alone was measured

124 primary and secondary care, to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of four primary care initiated strate

125 data, we projected the clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of frequent HIV screening among high-

126 We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of FujiLAM for tuberculosis testing a

127 this analysis, we do not address the cost or cost-effectiveness of future tests.

128 ls are required to evaluate the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of HCR compared with CABG and multive

129 S. HCV screening guidelines, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of HCV antenatal rescreening for wome

130 We assessed the cost-effectiveness of HCV screening for pregnant women i

131 Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of HCV treatment in patients of diffe

132 We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HCV treatment models for OAT patie

133 nd the world to assess the health impact and cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccina

134 Cost-effectiveness of HV centers was determined by calcu

135 udy, we created a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line settin

136 The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing a stepwise objective

137 We investigated the effects and cost-effectiveness of implementing ambient storage of he

138 ession, we estimated the coverage impact and cost-effectiveness of implementing CTC and CPAD interven

139 This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of implementing national bans of high

140 The incremental cost-effectiveness of implementing SA PC 101 over curren

141 We aimed to assess the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of incorporating these POC assays int

142 We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment

143 We aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of intermittent preventive treatment

144 iously validated simulations to estimate the cost-effectiveness of intervention strategies that inclu

145 Notably, there were few studies of the cost-effectiveness of interventions compared to alternat

146 owever, to the knowledge of the authors, the cost-effectiveness of intraoperative MRI has not been es

147 sive overview of the current evidence on the cost-effectiveness of IPTp-DP.

148 This study determined the cost-effectiveness of limited vitrectomy for this condit

149 To evaluate the benefits and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance angiography scr

150 We modeled the cost-effectiveness of MDA to children 1-59 months of age

151 ant implications for the relative impact and cost-effectiveness of new enteric vaccines.

152 into account when assessing scalability and cost-effectiveness of novel therapeutic strategies.

153 Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic co

154 Future studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of performing an ILM peel for initial

155 The potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomic-guided therapy (PG

156 es is an important obstacle to assessing the cost-effectiveness of potential intervention strategies.

157 This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of PrEP in men who have sex with men

158 l to KwaZulu-Natal to predict the impact and cost-effectiveness of PrEP, with use concentrated in per

159 We used the Cost-effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications mode

160 to examine the clinical benefits, costs, and cost-effectiveness of replacing conventional assays for

161 , we review the literature pertaining to the cost-effectiveness of respiratory virus testing in pedia

162 The cost-effectiveness of risk-tailored screening improved a

163 Findings are useful in determining the cost-effectiveness of RSV therapies in development.

164 lier initiation of treatment and the overall cost-effectiveness of screening remains uncertain.

165 We compared the impact and cost-effectiveness of several potential new testing stra

166 tivitis with or without allergic asthma, the cost-effectiveness of SLIT (tablets, Grazax((R)) and Ora

167 owever, evaluations of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such interventions among people wi

168 elop a health economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surgery in this cohort when compar

169 We therefore aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of tafamidis and its potential effect

170 here are limited data on the performance and cost-effectiveness of the algorithms.

171 This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the environmental cleaning bundle

172 eilly discuss the article "Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the GoActive intervention to incre

173 s in quality-adjusted life years, costs, and cost-effectiveness of the menu calorie labeling interven

174 We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the program by comparing pertussis

175 iderable uncertainties, findings support the cost-effectiveness of the program.

176 Longterm benefits, harms and the cost-effectiveness of the risk-adapted CRC screening pro

177 trospectively quantify the budget impact and cost-effectiveness of the scale-up of the programme.

178 The cost-effectiveness of the treatment options was analyzed

179 We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the triple-pill strategy.

180 The cost-effectiveness of this approach, as well as the dire

181 Here, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of this intervention in a model that

182 To assess the cost-effectiveness of this intervention, we determined t

183 Yet, the potential health impacts and cost-effectiveness of this policy remain unclear.

184 better understand the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of this screening approach.

185 There is limited information on the cost-effectiveness of this strategy.

186 Evidence on cost-effectiveness of TTT for key populations can help a

187 The modeled cost-effectiveness of TTT for LTBI varies across states

188 We compared the cost-effectiveness of two screening interventions for li

189 comparative economic study of the costs and cost-effectiveness of UAS versus motorcycles in Liberia

190 ned country-specific net benefit or harm and cost-effectiveness of universal provision of MNPs to chi

191 The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of using teduglutide in conjunction w

192 The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of using teduglutide in US adult pati

193 Due to its efficiency and cost-effectiveness, our method represents a valuable new

194 will provide more insight in refractive and cost-effectiveness outcomes for ISBCS compared to DSBCS.

195 The cost-effectiveness plane showed that restrictive strateg

196 reening at ages 10 and 20 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $106 841/quality-adjusted life-

197 all groups considered (base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $39,800).

198 With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$200 000/QALY gained, PCDT is

199 adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at willingness-to-pay th

200 sts about what threshold for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in dollars per quality-a

201 Strategies with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) less than the country-sp

202 At 20% coverage, DAAs had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27 251/quality-adjus

203 1 (2653 to 13 038) generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $8 (2 to 29) per DALY

204 compared with no treatment, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of DAAs at a price USD 4

205 Strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of less than US$3250 per

206 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated assuming

207 cost per life-year saved as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), based on 2017 US dollar

208 primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

209 vs FLU alone was measured as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

210 ), total cost (in 2018 US$), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; from the health-care sec

211 considered cost-effective if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (USD/year-of-life saved) was <$

212 ,156 (95% CI, -$158 to $92,179) (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $38,648 per quality-adjusted

213 for all international travelers (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $4.6M/measles case avert

214 $196 per patient) and long term (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $5,387-$8,430/QALY), dep

215 was cost-effective for both MSM (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], $1000/year of life save

216 The main outcomes were lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and annual budget impact, asses

217 tiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefit of ado

218 The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health car

219 antibacterial envelope was associated with a cost-effectiveness ratio below contemporary benchmarks i

220 s with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the cost of abla

221 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablation compared

222 ad a mean loss of 0.34 QALYs, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of $29 600 per QALY gained.

223 ase in 1-year care costs, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $42,120 per quality-adjusted

224 nefit of AUD$1.02 million and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4684 per QALY gained.

225 able to pesticide self-poisoning, reaching a cost-effectiveness ratio of $75 per HLYG (95% UI 58-99)

226 000-1 377 000), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $880 000 (697 000-1 564 000)

227 .23-0.86) longer survival for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9392.

228 6) per patient at 1 year, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately pound 12,900 (

229 red with DM, resulting in a mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro 27 023 ($29 725) per LY

230 by euro 670 million, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro 9,600/QALY.

231 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of high bundle adherence was $1

232 I] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound 1,359 per quality-adju

233 her total QALYs and costs and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pound 110 741/QALY compared

234 The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the antibacterial envelope c

235 ffectiveness estimates showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$13.0 per disability-adjus

236 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranged from 28 500 pound (low c

237 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio remained lower than the willing

238 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $36,001/quality-adjusted li

239 4.1) per 1000 women; the average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $53 per DALY averted.

240 rd ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QALY gained.

241 st of US$5,850, the mean overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$92,200 per QALY (base ca

242 The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

243 as determined by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

244 son, and was not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $420 000/quality-adjusted life

245 ementation costs; and determined incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and benefit-cost-ratios

246 costs over 180-days, as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER, $/quality-adjusted life

247 We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and report the mean an

248 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are reported in 2016 U

249 adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each city (10-year

250 program and calculated resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from the health system

251 s was assessed by calculation of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using net policy cost

252 adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a

253 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were compared to a $10

254 Results are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined as incrementa

255 d life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

256 ars (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

257 adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

258 sted life expectancy, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, $/quality-adjusted lif

259 in the German model resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cabozantinib of $306,778/l

260 The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for PLA were INT$316 per case

261 e base case analysis, national bans produced cost-effectiveness ratios of $94 per HLYG (95% UI 73-123

262 630 for best supportive care and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $972,049/life year and $1,1

263 patients with LDL-C >=100 mg/dl, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios remained below US$100,000 per

264 d result in substantially higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than the current recommendatio

265 ning low-income to high-income settings, and cost-effectiveness ratios were analysed at the country-s

266 Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to estimate th

267 ed life years (QALYs), cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for each strate

268 adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

269 adjusted life years (QALYs); and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

270 cured; cirrhosis cases avoided; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios; DOC costs (2016 US dollars);

271 omising screening test, but its outcomes and cost-effectiveness remain uncertain.PurposeTo determine

272 wever, methotrexate has limited clinical and cost effectiveness, restricting its use to 25-30% of the

273 ios in which LDP does not outperform ODP for cost-effectiveness seem unrealistic, e.g., a 30-day mort

274 The cost-effectiveness, simplicity and ease of implementatio

275 les outbreaks can inform cost-of-illness and cost-effectiveness studies of measles and measles preven

276 n addition, there is a lack of well-designed cost-effectiveness studies using established methods.

277 A UK cost-effectiveness study was conducted using an early mo

278 characteristics but also brings flexibility, cost-effectiveness, swiftness and user-friendliness.

279 inimal CGM monitoring duration is crucial in cost-effectiveness terms.

280 testing of all samples has a slightly lower cost-effectiveness than the selective policy based on fo

281 ratio (ICER) less than the country-specific cost-effectiveness threshold (US$500 in Kenya, $750 in S

282 ined constant, this ratio remained under the cost-effectiveness threshold as long as the specificity

283 Teduglutide does not meet a traditional cost-effectiveness threshold as treatment for PN reducti

284 We assumed a cost-effectiveness threshold equal to each country's per

285 RT delivery produced ICERs that exceeded the cost-effectiveness threshold for all clinic volumes.

286 2 QALYs) lost due to illness; this implies a cost-effectiveness threshold of $104 000 per QALY (UI, $

287 d 90% model variability of 250 runs, using a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$500 per disability-ad

288 2019 to 2039, used a 3% discount rate, and a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$500 per disability-ad

289 enefit but would greatly exceed conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds at the current US list pri

290 e market, vaccine prices have decreased, and cost-effectiveness thresholds have been re-examined.

291 intervention is cost-effective for different cost-effectiveness thresholds.

292 One-way sensitivity analyses showed the cost-effectiveness to be robust to all input parameters.

293 mine threshold vaccine dose prices achieving cost-effectiveness under differing paired strategies.

294 $100,00/QALY was considered the US cost-effectiveness upper limit.

295 Cost-effectiveness was assessed by calculation of increm

296 Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental c

297 Cost-effectiveness was presented as cost per DALY averte

298 herapies, alongside evidence of clinical and cost-effectiveness, will be central to their uptake and

299 al cost perspective, we did an evaluation of cost-effectiveness with a wide range of willingness-to-p

300 planning, as well as a potential bearing on cost effectiveness within early pregnancy care.