ライフサイエンスコーパス: societal perspective

1 % of symptomatic cases saved $209.5 billion (societal perspective).

2 ying with vaccination coverage and efficacy (societal perspective).

3 a healthcare perspective and $12.71B from a societal perspective.

4 Costs were measured from the societal perspective.

5 000/QALY; conclusions were similar from the societal perspective.

6 ed the impact of adding an EBB to TRT from a societal perspective.

7 This analysis used a societal perspective.

8 lyses and choose therapies from a long-term, societal perspective.

9 9 for the health care system and $51 for the societal perspective.

10 A, in comparison to no screening, based on a societal perspective.

11 ective approach from a third-party payer and societal perspective.

12 $134 450 (95% CI, $86 370-$182 540) from the societal perspective.

13 omically evaluated against usual care from a societal perspective.

14 otherapy vs usual physiotherapy alone from a societal perspective.

15 whereas indirect costs were estimated from a societal perspective.

16 facility setting and $152 992/QALY from the societal perspective.

17 Disease costs were estimated using the societal perspective.

18 60 per patient, &OV0556;162 was saved from a societal perspective.

19 ternative options in treating ImCRC from the societal perspective.

20 oldova, the oral regimen was dominant from a societal perspective.

21 cost effective from a third-party payer and societal perspective.

22 rspective and $1 112 800 ($225 450) from the societal perspective.

23 oldova, and Uganda from either a provider or societal perspective.

24 was a better use of a scare resource from a societal perspective.

25 by 5% annually, adopting a health care and a societal perspective.

26 fe years gained, and associated costs from a societal perspective.

27 ination programs to be cost-effective from a societal perspective.

28 cost-effectiveness criteria from a European societal perspective.

29 health insurance and euro 38 433.81 from the societal perspective.

30 and cost-effectiveness from a disaggregated societal perspective.

31 ve and an ICER of $128 012 per QALY from the societal perspective.

32 405 250 (95% CI, $358 550-$451 950) from the societal perspective.

33 ith a cost-benefit analysis conducted from a societal perspective.

34 ment perspective and $878.0 million from the societal perspective.

35 LY) gained from both a healthcare system and societal perspective.

36 ted the scenario cost-effectiveness from the societal perspective.

37 r perspective and $122 931 per QALY from the societal perspective.

38 ccounting for both costs and outcomes from a societal perspective.

39 ttery technologies are most desirable from a societal perspective.

40 ing versus opportunistic case finding from a societal perspective.

41 om opioids as an outcome and with use of the societal perspective.

42 cision-analytic model was constructed from a societal perspective.

43 s developed with a lifetime horizon and U.S. societal perspective.

44 ovides better outcomes at lower costs from a societal perspective.

45 er 10-year and lifetime horizons, assuming a societal perspective.

46 medical costs were calculated from a Chinese societal perspective.

47 re sector perspective and another based on a societal perspective.

48 economic evaluation was conducted based on a societal perspective.

49 cost savings for most interventions under a societal perspective.

50 sponses to the antibiotic crisis must take a societal perspective.

51 We analysed the base case from a societal perspective.

52 a Markov model with a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective.

53 d economic burden of Chagas disease from the societal perspective.

54 ate-transition model, lifetime time horizon, societal perspective.

55 on published literature and took a lifetime, societal perspective.

56 Costs were analyzed from a societal perspective.

57 etermine the net savings of the CIRB using a societal perspective.

58 patient harm at reduced or no cost from the societal perspective.

59 s, and incremental cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective.

60 st of approximately $55,000 per month from a societal perspective.

61 ies would save both lives and money from the societal perspective.

62 3) were estimated to be cost saving from the societal perspective.

63 20,000 per quality-adjusted life-yr from the societal perspective.

64 mbination therapy; and third-party payer and societal perspectives.

65 ion costs were estimated from both payer and societal perspectives.

66 ss ratios (ICERs) from the health system and societal perspectives.

67 atios (ICERs) for the health care sector and societal perspectives.

68 discounted at 1.5% for the health system and societal perspectives.

69 with early AD, from US healthcare sector and societal perspectives.

70 th FH-based testing in Canada from payer and societal perspectives.

71 3% annually, from the healthcare sector and societal perspectives.

72 analyses were conducted from both payer and societal perspectives.

73 ble when taking wider health care sector and societal perspectives.

74 h care professional, health care sector, and societal perspectives.

75 over a lifetime horizon, from healthcare and societal perspectives.

76 ients and assessed costs from healthcare and societal perspectives.

77 ated treatment costs from the government and societal perspectives.

78 dence, and lessens costs from provincial and societal perspectives.

79 current wait time (CWT) from government and societal perspectives.

80 timated the costs from the health system and societal perspectives.

81 eness of ERP from both the institutional and societal perspectives.

82 $289 per DALY averted [95% UI: 156-537]) and societal perspectives ($229 per DALY averted [95% UI: 10

83 n model, including lifetime time horizon, US societal perspective, 3% discount rate for costs, and he

84 quality-adjusted life year gained) from the societal perspective across a range of HCV(+) liver avai

85 From a societal perspective, adopting a policy of G6PD deficien

86 From a societal perspective, AIMS was slightly more expensive t

87 Cost-utility analyses were performed from a societal perspective alongside the multinational randomi

88 to $183 000 per QALY gained in a traditional societal perspective analysis with the inclusion of pati

89 after COPD hospitalization in the US using a societal perspective analysis.

90 irect health service costs into account) and societal perspective (analysis 2; taking education costs

91 ompared with no therapy was $11,290 from the societal perspective and $11,230 from the third-party pa

92 5% UI, $44.5 million-$1450 million) from the societal perspective and $1590 million from the health c

93 A modified societal perspective and 1-year time horizon were used.

94 t-cost ratio of 19.48 (18.82-22.08) from the societal perspective and 8.02 (7.64-8.80) from the provi

95 of various HIV prevention strategies using a societal perspective and a lifetime horizon.

96 eference case analysis is conducted from the societal perspective and accounts for benefits, harms, a

97 r quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), using a societal perspective and assuming 100% completion of the

98 We adopted a societal perspective and calculated incremental cost-eff

99 Our analysis was conducted from the societal perspective and considered a lifetime time hori

100 We adopted a societal perspective and estimated an incremental cost-e

101 Medical costs were estimated using a societal perspective and excluded the cost of the transp

102 CURs) were calculated for 12 months from the societal perspective and from the payer perspective of G

103 are needed to validate these findings from a societal perspective and in the context of other emergin

104 The analysis was performed from a societal perspective and included studies that had been

105 Taking a societal perspective and including wider economic impact

106 lion hospitalizations, saving $48.8 billion (societal perspective and starting treatment after 5% of

107 Critically, this review will also consider societal perspectives and public engagement about emergi

108 was used to analyze the cost-effectiveness (societal perspective) and budget effect (public health c

109 was used to analyze the cost-effectiveness (societal perspective) and budget effect (public health c

110 ount their impact on long-term costs (from a societal perspective) and quality-adjusted life-years (Q

111 ulative 12-month costs (assessed from a U.S. societal perspective) and quality-adjusted life-years (Q

112 Direct medical costs were examined from a societal perspective, and costs and benefits were discou

113 Analyses were performed from a societal perspective, and probability and cost estimates

114 ed life-years (QALYs) gained, costs from the societal perspective, and the incremental cost-effective

115 defined from patient, healthcare system, and societal perspectives?" and, perhaps more worrisome, "Sh

116 v model to analyze cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective, applying a willingness-to-pay thre

117 e cost-effectiveness was even greater from a societal perspective as additional cost savings due to r

118 therapy in anti-C5-treated patients from the societal perspective, as compared with C5 inhibition.

119 etween 0 and 1, studies that used a broader (societal) perspective, assessed health gains in quality

120 in Moldova, and $7900 in Uganda, and from a societal perspective at thresholds of more than $15 900

121 d care, assessed from Ministry of Health and societal perspectives at 3 months (intervention) and 12

122 In analyses conducted from the societal perspective, benefits were similar and cost sav

123 t-effectiveness study was performed from the societal perspective by constructing stochastic tree, de

124 This study demonstrates that, from a societal perspective, catheter ablation appears to be a

125 From a societal perspective CBT has a 59.5% likelihood of being

126 AD $16 416 (US $11 903.00) per QALY from the societal perspective compared with FH-based testing, wel

127 as cost-saving from both the direct cost and societal perspectives compared with the absence of MMR v

128 ve and an ICER of $218 907 per QALY from the societal perspective, compared with SC.

129 Societal perspective cost data and effect outcome data w

130 (QALYs) gained, and health care and modified societal perspective costs.

131 ase cost-effectiveness analysis was from the societal perspective; costs and quality-adjusted life-ye

132 From a societal perspective, CTR was associated with lower cost

133 From the societal perspective, Daraja incurred more costs than st

134 women, the base case microsimulation from a societal perspective demonstrated that PR resulted in ne

135 Using a societal perspective, direct health care costs were assi

136 cremental costs (from healthcare and partial societal perspectives), disability-adjusted life years (

137 From a societal perspective during this same period, the progra

138 From the health care organization and societal perspectives, ERP produced more quality-adjuste

139 From the societal perspective, EWT produced lifetime savings of C

140 Perspective: Modified societal perspective, excluding time and productivity co

141 Modified societal perspective, excluding time and productivity co

142 The analysis used a societal perspective for a hypothetical cohort of VT pat

143 country-specific guidelines-conducted from a societal perspective for the Netherlands and a third-par

144 From a societal perspective, HCV therapy using LDV/SOF with rib

145 er perspective (healthcare costs) and from a societal perspective (healthcare and non-healthcare cost

146 From a societal perspective, higher-dose regimens account for t

147 om both the Tanzanian Ministry of Health and societal perspectives; however, it was associated with i

148 From the societal perspective, HUD-VASH was 6200 US dollars (15%)

149 ncluding savings from reduced incarceration (societal perspective) improved the ICER to $6,200/QALY g

150 aharan Africa (SSA) and the first to adopt a societal perspective in calculating cost-effectiveness t

151 ffectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective in the French context.

152 cost effective from a third-party payer and societal perspective in the United States.

153 ere calculated for provincial government and societal perspectives in Canadian dollars (Can$1 = US$0.

154 From a societal perspective including informal healthcare costs

155 When analyzed from a societal perspective (including criminal justice system-

156 When analyzed from a societal perspective (including criminal justice system-

157 , cataracts, and pathological myopia, from a societal perspective (including direct and indirect cost

158 A partial societal perspective (including intervention costs and m

159 From a societal perspective (including productivity gains and a

160 The analysis was performed from a societal perspective, including all costs and effects, r

161 A societal perspective incremental cost-effectiveness rati

162 interventions from client, practitioner, and societal perspectives is only a beginning.

163 6% (from a payer perspective) to 68% (from a societal perspective) less than the average costs of pro

164 alyses were conducted from the United States societal perspective, limited to healthcare costs, and u

165 In the societal perspective model, an intervention that increas

166 Only 20% of studies took a societal perspective, more than a third failed to discou

167 From a societal perspective, novel treatments for HCV are cost-

168 der perspective and 84% probability from the societal perspective of being more cost-effective than s

169 (net present value) from the direct cost and societal perspectives of US dollars 3.5 billion and US d

170 The analysis was conducted from a societal perspective on a dynamic cohort over a 20-year

171 te of 0.03, time horizon of 2010-2050, and a societal perspective on costs were assumed.

172 -UI [8.1, 25.5]) costs could be saved from a societal perspective over 20 years.

173 around parameter estimates performed from a societal perspective over a 100-year time horizon.

174 rove health outcomes and save money from the societal perspective over the long-term.

175 e may be cost effective when analyzed from a societal perspective over the patient's lifetime.

176 strictive strategy saved &OV0556;4563 from a societal perspective per pain-free patient lost.

177 e costs for RA averaged $5,919 a year from a societal perspective; persons with RA incur another $2,5

178 From a societal perspective, pipeline development planning proc

179 From a societal perspective, population genomic screening would

180 Under a societal perspective, regional returns outweigh investme

181 to result in significant cost savings from a societal perspective, relative to no treatment.

182 ICERs from societal perspective remained cost-saving after adaptati

183 From the societal perspective, robotic colectomy costs $745 more

184 y analysis range - pound42 to pound229]) and societal perspective (saving pound4476 per pregnant woma

185 plications and be more cost-effective from a societal perspective (saving US$4.0-300.0 per disability

186 In the societal perspective scenario, with the broadest inclusi

187 From the societal perspective, screening and depression care mana

188 From a societal perspective, telescreening up to a frequency of

189 atment for IBS is more cost-effective from a societal perspective than not including it, even though

190 From the societal perspective that takes into account all costs a

191 From a societal perspective, the aggregated cost of vaccination

192 From the societal perspective, the association between treatment

193 From the societal perspective, the cost per QALY gained associate

194 From a societal perspective, the cost/QALY of the lifestyle int

195 From the societal perspective, the detection and treatment progra

196 From the societal perspective, the estimated lifetime costs per Q

197 Adopting a broader societal perspective, the intervention becomes potential

198 From a societal perspective, the interventions cost approximate

199 From a payer or societal perspective, the net estimated cost savings, af

200 Considering a societal perspective, the total average costs per patien

201 From the societal perspective, the total cost for conventional re

202 From a societal perspective, this strategy, compared with stand

203 The investment case model applied a societal perspective to predict the health and economic

204 From a societal perspective, treatment of rotavirus disease cos

205 LPI was no longer cost-effective from the societal perspective using ANA-LIS data at age 80 years

206 ffectiveness analysis was performed from the societal perspective using data from a randomized clinic

207 Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a societal perspective using disability-adjusted life-year

208 ing ANA-LIS data at age 80 years or from the societal perspective using ZAP data or third-party persp

209 6; TTO, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.25) from the societal perspective (VAS, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.26; T

210 hods A Markov decision-analytic model with a societal perspective was constructed.

211 From a societal perspective, we assessed the potential cost-eff

212 Taking a societal perspective, we compared the cost-effectiveness

213 Taking a global and societal perspective, we estimate the social benefits of

214 Mean total costs from a societal perspective were $16,357 for HARP and $16,286 f

215 e compared with inpatient treatment from the societal perspective were 67% at an MWTP threshold of eu

216 More than 99% of simulations from payer and societal perspectives were cost-effective on PSA (5000 s

217 Payer and societal perspectives were evaluated.

218 The payer and societal perspectives were evaluated.

219 al outcomes, resource use, and costs (from a societal perspective) were assessed prospectively for al

220 n, and a cost-effectiveness analysis, from a societal perspective, were conducted.

221 AP iterations became cost-effective from the societal perspective when the model started at age 55 ye

222 ive and an ICER of $97 977 per QALY from the societal perspective, while second-line tisagenlecleucel

223 yses were performed from a health sector and societal perspective with a 15-year time horizon and a d

224 Analyses were conducted from a societal perspective with a time horizon of 9 months.

225 We performed the base-case analysis from the societal perspective with a willingness-to-pay threshold

226 applies two investment case perspectives: a societal perspective with all costs and benefits measure

227 the health care sector and $39 480 from the societal perspective with decremental QALY of -0.02).

228 le cost (VA perspective) or at a lower cost (societal perspective) with no evidence of a difference i

229 ving Self-Management Strategy (AIMS), from a societal perspective, with a 15-month time horizon.

230 yses were performed from a health-sector and societal perspective, with a 15-year time horizon and a

231 ife-year (QALY), was calculated from a Dutch societal perspective, with a time horizon of 10 years.

232 al strategy under both healthcare sector and societal perspectives, with an incremental cost-effectiv

233 r 5 years and a lifetime from healthcare and societal perspectives, with uncertainty incorporated in