ライフサイエンスコーパス: societal perspective

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

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

3 medical costs were calculated from a Chinese societal perspective.

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

5 economic evaluation was conducted based on a societal perspective.

6 cost savings for most interventions under a societal perspective.

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

8 We analysed the base case from a societal perspective.

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

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

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

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

13 Costs were analyzed from a societal perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21 Costs were measured from the societal perspective.

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

23 This analysis used a societal perspective.

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

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

26 9 for the health care system and $51 for the societal perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

59 Modified societal perspective, excluding time and productivity co

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

69 6% (from a payer perspective) to 68% (from a societal perspective) less than the average costs of pro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

81 From the societal perspective, screening and depression care mana

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

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

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

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

86 From a societal perspective, the interventions cost approximate

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

88 From a societal perspective, treatment of rotavirus disease cos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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