Based in the Faculty of Public Health and Policy, the Centre For Health Economics In London (CHIL) acts as the central body for staff and students across the School who study or apply health economics.
Our research spans the field of health economics, including: Economic evaluation and priority setting, Evaluation of complex policy interventions, Health system financing and organization & Preferences and behaviour.
To find out about current opportunities attached to the Centre of Health Economics in London (CHIL), please check our updates page.
We are a world-leading group of over 50 academics working on a diverse portfolio of health economics research, with work ranging from the development of innovative methods and empirical research, to policy engagement and impact.
Members have strong national and international partnerships and a wealth of experience in advising UK and other national governments, international agencies, and organisations.
Overview
Based in the Faculty of Public Health and Policy, the Centre For Health Economics In London (CHIL) acts as the central body for staff and students across the School who study or apply health economics.
The Centre’s vision is forward-looking and emphasises cutting edge methodological development, rigorous empirical research, and working alongside policy and decision-makers to achieve policy impact. We seek to improve collaborations among economists and researchers in other disciplines at LSHTM and with research groups and policymakers in the UK and around the world. Centre members’ expertise places them at the forefront in building the capacity of health economists and their policy communities – and embracing respectful collaborations worldwide.
Our teaching programme includes research degrees and multiple masters degree programmes taught in London and through our distance learning programme.
LSHTM economists link to others through IHEA and the UK Health Economics Study Group.
Leadership
Director
| Anna Vassall, Professor of Health Economics |
Deputy Director
| Andrew Briggs, Professor of Health Economics |
Theme Leads
Economic evaluation and priority setting
| Anna Vassall, Professor |
| John Cairns, Professor |
Economics of health systems and organisations
| Pauline Allen, Professor |
| Catherine Goodman, Professor |
| Richard Grieve, Professor |
| Timothy Powell-Jackson, Associate Professor |
| Ties Hoomans, Assistant Professor |
| Matthew Quaife, Assistant Professor |
| Pitchaya Indravudh, Research Fellow |
| Alec Miners, Associate Professor |
Communication Committee
| Melisa Martinez-Alvarez, Assistant Professor |
| Kara Hanson, Professor |
| Rosa LeGood, Associate Professor |
| Matthew Quaife, Research Fellow |
| Sergio Torres-Rueda, Research Fellow |
| Anna Vassall, Professor |
Our research spans the field of health economics, covering the four major themes of: economic evaluation and priority setting, policy evaluation, economics of health systems and organisations, and preference and behaviour.
Read more for overviews, areas of interest, relevant publications, and contact points for each theme:
- Economic evaluation and priority setting
-
Overview of theme
The economic evaluation and priority setting group includes over 30 staff members and research degree students from different disciplines including economics, statistics, mathematical modelling and epidemiology. We work in close collaboration with research partners in the UK and several low and middle income countries.
Our work aims to improve health by informing policy, processes and approaches used to allocate resources across health systems in the UK and around the world. Our research draws on strengths in economic data collection, statistical analysis, valuation of health outcomes, and infectious disease modelling.
We value policy impact, and have long established partnerships with a wide range of both global and national policy makers. We regularly support and participate in advisory work, guideline development, national strategic planning and health technology assessment processes.
The theme leads are Anna Vassall and John Cairns.
Areas of active research
We work across a wide range of health topics, addressing both non-communicable and infectious disease burden. We apply and develop methods in the following areas:
- Improving the statistical analysis of trial and non-trial data
- Incorporating behaviour, demand and health systems considerations into economic evaluation
- Designing frameworks for the economic evaluation of multi-sectoral intervention
- Understanding and estimating costs and resource use
- Incorporating societal perspective, including the measurement of economic impact
- Use of capability and well-being methods in global health
- Incorporating equity in priority settings
- Evaluation of complex interventions
- Economic evaluation of a complex intervention to reduce bullying in schools
- Evaluating disease models in priority setting
- Cost-effectiveness of population genetic testing for cancer prevention
Recent publications
- Policy evaluation
-
Overview of theme
We aim to improve methods for policy evaluation, drawing heavily on approaches developed in economics, but also from related disciplines such as biostatistics and management science. The group’s expertise is in the development and application of quasi-experimental methods including matching, difference-in-differences, flexible regression, and synthetic control methods. Our focus is on applying these approaches to large-scale observational data to address questions of international policy-relevance in health.
We work closely with policy-makers in many different countries, and their requirements motivate our interests in methods development, which takes place in collaboration with a cross-disciplinary network of methodological experts.
The theme leads are Timothy Powell-Jackson and Richard Grieve.
Areas of active research
- Investigation of synthetic control methods versus difference in difference estimation
- Application of instrumental variable approaches for evaluating person-level treatment effects
- Policy-relevant evaluations including of integrated care initiatives in the UK Value of implementation approaches
- National evaluation of pay for performance in Brasil using quasi-experimental methods applied to linked administrative datasets
- Large scale randomised controlled trial of a quality improvement and business intervention in private health facilities in Tanzania
- Analysis of household scanner data on food and beverage expenditures to understand dietary behaviours and evaluation of likely health related food policy impacts
Recent publications
Quirmbach, D., Cornelsen, L., Jebb, S.A., Marteau, T. & Smith, R. (2018) Effect of increasing the price of sugar-sweetened beverages on alcoholic beverage purchases: an economic analysis of sales data. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. doi: 10.1136/jech-2017-209791. Anselmi, L., Binyaruka, P. & Borghi. J. (2017) Understanding causal pathways within health systems policy evaluation through mediation analysis: an application to payment for performance (P4P) in Tanzania. Implementation Science. 12:10. Lépine, A., Lagarde, M. Le Nestour, A. (2017) How effective and fair is user fee removal? Evidence from Zambia using a pooled synthetic control. Health Economics. 27:493–508. Cornelsen, L., Mazzocchi, M., Green, R., Dangour, A.D. & Smith, R.D. (2016) Estimating the relationship between food prices and food consumption – methods matter. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. 38(3):546-51. O’Neill, S., Kreif, N., Grieve, R.D., Sutton, M. & Sekhon, J.S. (2016) Estimating causal effects: considering three alternatives to difference-in-differences estimation. Health Services Research and Outcomes Methodology. 16(1-2):1-21. Kreif, N., Grieve, R., Hangartner,D., Nikolova,S., Turner,A. & Sutton, M. (2015) Examination of the Synthetic Control Method for Evaluating Health Policies with Multiple Treated Units. Health Economics. 25: 1514–1528. Powell-Jackson, T., Mazumdar, S. & Mills, A. (2015) Financial incentives in health: New evidence from India's Janani Suraksha Yojana. Journal of Health Economics. 43:154-69. Steventon, A., Grieve, R. & Sekhon, J.S. (2015) A comparison of alternative strategies for choosing control populations in observational studies. Health Services Research and Outcomes Methodology. 15(3–4): 157–181. Powell-Jackson, T. & Hanson, K. (2012) Financial incentives for maternal health: impact of a national programme in Nepal. Journal of Health Economics. 31(1):271-84. Sekhon, J. & Grieve, R. (2012) A Matching Method for Improving Covariate Balance in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses. Health Economics. 21(6):695-714. - Economics of health systems and organisations
-
Overview of theme
The effective design and management of health systems poses many important economics questions, such as:
- How should we finance health care?
- What role should the government have in health care provision?
- How should we regulate private providers?
- How should we pay health care workers?
Our work involves the use of economic concepts, theories and insights to address these types of dilemmas. We use quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods to understand and analyse specific aspects of health system performance, and to support the design and evaluation of health system strategies and interventions. We study health care markets (e.g. competition and choice); non-market approaches (e.g. planning and regulation); healthcare financing (e.g. purchasing and provider payment), and resource allocation (e.g. rationing mechanisms). We draw on a wide range of economic theories, including principal-agency theory, transaction costs theory, new institutional economics, theory of yardstick competition, and theories of regulation.
Our work encompasses low, middle and high income countries and humanitarian settings. We investigate the variation across these health systems and their contexts, while also striving to identify common insights, and facilitate cross-country learning.
Theme members are also convenors of iHEA’s Special Interest Group on Financing for Universal Health Coverage.
The theme leads are Pauline Allen and Catherine Goodman.
Areas of active research
- Healthcare markets and competition
-
- New organisational forms in healthcare markets e.g. analysis of the growth of pharmacy chains in India
- The nature of competition for private delivery providers in India
- Competitive strategies used by private providers e.g. the role of kick-backs and commission payments by Indian hospitals and clinics
- Use of competition in the English NHS
- Market entry into the English NHS by non-state organisations
- Health system financing
-
- Methods for tracking donor aid and domestic expenditure in low- and middle-income countries
- Political economy of health system financing in low- and middle-income countries
- Equity of health care financing in low- and middle-income countries
- Evaluation of health systems’ financing impact on equity in Indonesia
- Governance and regulation
-
- Evaluation of innovative regulatory reforms in Kenya’s health facilities
- New regulatory needs in the face of evolving healthcare markets in India, Kenya and Nigeria
- Evaluation of social franchising programmes in Uganda and India
- Evaluation of a quality improvement programme in Tanzanian private facilities
- System regulation by governments to improve provider performance and contain costs in England
- Network and collaborative approaches for planning and delivering healthcare in England
- New models of contracting in the English NHS, such as alliancing
- Purchasing and provider payment
-
- Evaluation of pay-for-performance for health facility staff in Tanzania
- Health system effects of pay-for-performance in Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia and Brazil
- Social Impact Bonds to fund innovative services in England
- Financial incentives to improve quality of care in English healthcare providers
- Different methods of pricing and risk allocation in the English NHS
- Intra-organisational issues
-
- How senior managers instil appreciation of organisational goals in front line staff
- Staff motivation in not-for-profit organisations in England
- Intra-agency incentives
Recent publications
- Preferences and behaviour
-
Overview of theme
Understanding people’s preferences as well as what determines the choices they make is critical for an efficient and effective healthcare system. This theme brings together researchers using classical and behavioural economic techniques to investigate and explain health decisions.
Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a method to understand preferences for products and services. They can be used to estimate user valuations and predict uptake prior to implementation. These experiments are being adapted for rapid application within the formative research phase, in order to optimise trials and programming. Their uptake predictions are also being incorporated into cost-effectiveness models, as an improvement on mathematical modelling which has traditionally relied on expert opinion to estimate uptake in projecting the impact of new technologies.
Our group is undertaking DCEs to estimate these parameters in order to improve projections of uptake, and better understand how product attributes such as efficacy affect epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness directly, and indirectly through increasing attractiveness.
Behavioural economics combines theories from economics and psychology to investigate and understand how people make choices. We are undertaking research that examines how cognitive biases, such as overconfidence, affect decisions made by healthcare providers. We also make use of randomised experiments to study how behavioural interventions can be used to improve quality of care. In addition, we are using it to optimise implementation science research, through changing choice architecture in HIV self-testing.
We are also convenors of iHEA’s Special Interest Group on Health Preference Research.
The theme leads are Alec Miners, Pitchaya Indravudh and Matthew Quaife
Areas of active research
- Using discrete choice experiments and revealed preference studies to design and evaluate interventions to improve health
- Behavioural change interventions to reduce sexually transmitted infections
- Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages
- HIV self-testing in the UK, Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe
- Comparison of stated and revealed preferences for blood donation using big data and data adaptive model estimation
- Assessing the role of discrete choice experiments and revealed preference studies in parametrising user uptake in economic evaluations
- Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV
- HIV self-testing
Recent publications
Miners, A., Llewellyn, C., King, C., Pollard, A., Roy, A., Gilson, R., Rodger, A., Burns., F. & Shahmanesh, M. (2018). Designing a brief behaviour change intervention to reduce sexually transmitted infections: a discrete choice experiment. International Journal of STD & AIDS, 0956462418760425. Quaife, M., Terris-Prestholt, F., Di Tanna, G.L. & Vickerman, P. (2018) How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of DCE external validity. European Journal of Health Economics. 1-14. Quaife, M., et al. (2018) The cost-effectiveness of multipurpose HIV and pregnancy prevention technologies in South Africa. Journal of the International AIDS Society. 21:e25064. SESH Study Team. (2017) Crowdsourcing to promote HIV testing among MSM in China: study protocol for a stepped wedge randomized controlled trial. Trials.18:447. Quaife, M., Eakle, R., Cabrera-Escobar, M.A., Vickerman, P., Kilbourne-Brook, M., Mvundura, M., Delany-Moretlwe, S. & Terris-Prestholt, F. (2018). Divergent Preferences for HIV Prevention: A Discrete Choice Experiment for Multipurpose HIV Prevention Products in South Africa. Medical Decision Making. 38(1):120-133. Indravudh, P.P., Sibanda, E.L., d'Elbée, M., Kumwenda, M.K., Ringwald, B., Maringwa, G., Simwinga, M., Nyirenda, L.J., Johnson, C.C., Hatzold, K., Terris-Prestholt, F. & Taegtmeyer, M. (2017) 'I will choose when to test, where I want to test': investigating young people's preferences for HIV self-testing in Malawi and Zimbabwe. AIDS. 31(3):S203-S212. Wambura, M., Mahler, H., Grund, J.M., Larke, N., Mshana, G., Kuringe, E., Plotkin, M., Lija, G., Makokha, M., Terris-Prestholt, F., Hayes, R.J., Changalucha, J., Weiss, H.A. & VMMC-Tanzania Study Group. (2017) Increasing voluntary medical male circumcision uptake among adult men in Tanzania. AIDS. 31(7):1025-1034. Quaife, M., Eakle, R., Cabrera, M., Vickerman, P., Tsepe, M., Delany-Moretlwe, S., Vickerman, P. & Terris-Prestholt, F. (2016) Preferences for ARV based HIV prevention methods among adult men and women, adolescent girls and female sex workers in Gauteng Province, South Africa: A protocol for a discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open. 6:e010682. Tang, W. et al. (2016) Crowdsourcing HIV Test Promotion Videos: A Non-Inferiority Trial in China. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 62(11):1436-42. Terris-Prestholt, F. & Windmeijer, F. (2016) How to Sell a Condom? The impact of demand creation tools on male and female condom sales in resource limited settings. Journal of Health Economics. 48:107-20. Terris-Prestholt F, Quaife M, Vickerman P. (2016) Parameterising user uptake in economic evaluations: the role of discrete choice experiments. Health Economics. 1:116-23. - Using discrete choice experiments and revealed preference studies to design and evaluate interventions to improve health
Each of these themes operate as sub-groups within CHIL, and are led by two or more LSHTM academics. Within them, researchers work on empirical and methodological developments, with particular interests in the following methods:
- Causal inference approaches to provide accurate, relevant estimates of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new health care interventions.
- Novel preference elicitation methods and discrete choice experiments
- Study of health care markets
- Incorporating constraints in economic evaluations
- Equity analyses using dynamic demographic and transmission modelling
- Willingness to pay thresholds for multi-sectoral interventions
- Cost functions in data scarce environments
- Standards in global health costing
- Use of behavioural economics and demand analysis to inform intervention and trial design and parameterise uptake in economic evaluation models
- Methods for tracking global and domestic resource flows for health
Masters
Health Economics courses are a core part of our Masters teaching in public health. Key to our teaching is the use of our research and policy experience within our teaching materials, featuring prominently in the following face-to-face courses in London:
- MSc Public Health (with the option of specialising in Health Economics)
- MSc Public Health for Development
- MSc Health Policy, Planning & Financing (delivered in collaboration with the London School of Economics)
Distance learning
We also have two distance learning courses:
- MSc, PG Diploma & PG Certificate in Public Health
- MSc, PG Diploma & PG Certificate in Global Health Policy
Economics MSc modules include “Introduction to Health Economics”, “Economic Analysis for Health Policy”, “Economic Evaluation”, and “The Economics of Global Health Policy”.
Short courses
We regularly offer short courses which are a great way to sharpen your skills and knowledge within health economics:
Study with us
If you are interested in undertaking research or studies on health economics at LSHTM, further details - including on the application process – are available for the face-to-face, distance learning, and research degree programmes. There is also advice on scholarship funding.
For any other information on studying at LSHTM, please contact the Study Team.
Research staff
| Anna Vassall Director of CHIL, Professor of Health Economics |
Andrew Briggs |
|
|
Kaja Abbas |
Pauline Allen Professor of Health Services Organisation Health systems and organisation |
Katherine Atkins Associate Professor of Infectious Disease Modelling Economic evaluation and priority setting |
| David Bath Research Fellow in Health Economics Economic evaluation and priority setting Preferences and behaviour |
Nicolas Berger Research Fellow Policy evaluation Preferences and behaviour |
Josephone Borghi Associate Professor of Health Economics and Policy Health systems and organisation |
| Andrew Clark Associate Professor Economic evaluation and priority setting |
||
| Laura Cornelsen Assistant Professor of Public Health Economics Preferences and behaviour Policy evaluation |
Marc d'Elbee Research Fellow in Health Economics Economic evaluation and priority setting Preferences and behaviour |
Jack Dowie Professor Economic evaluation and priority setting Policy evaluation |
| Rosalind Eggo Assistant Professor Economic evaluation and priority setting Policy evaluation |
Camilla Fabbri |
Silke Fernandes Research Fellow in Health Economics Economic evaluation and priority setting |
| Lucy Gilson Professor of Health Policy and Systems |
Gabriela Gomez |
Catherine Goodman Professor of Health Economics and Policy Health systems and organisation |
|
Giulia Greco |
Richard Grieve |
Manon Haemmerli Research Fellow Health Systems and organisation |
| Kara Hanson Professor of Health System Economics and Dean, Faculty of Public Health and Policy Policy evaluation |
Pitchaya Indravudh Research Fellow in Health Economics Preferences and behaviour Policy evaluation |
Mark Jit Professor of Vaccine Epidemiology Economic evaluation and priority setting |
| Marcus Keogh-Brown Associate Professor in Economic Modelling Policy evaluation Economics of health systems and organisations |
Jessica King Research Fellow in Health Economics and Impact Evaluation Policy evaluation Health systems and organisation |
Roxanne Kovacs Research Fellow in Health Economics Preferences and behaviour Policy evaluation |
|
Yoko Laurence |
Cherry Law Research Fellow Preferences and behaviour Policy evaluation |
Rosa Legood |
| Melissa Martinez-Alvarez Assistant Professor Economic evaluation and priority Setting |
Alexina Mason Assistant Professor of Medical Statistics Economic evaluation |
Rosalind Miller Research Fellow Health systems and organisation |
| Anne Mills Professor of Health Economics and Policy Health systems and organisation Economic evaluation and priority setting |
Alec Miners Associate Professor of Health Economics Preferences and behaviour Economic evaluation and priority setting |
Valerie Moran Research Fellow Health systems and organisations Policy evaluation |
| Nichola Naylor Research Fellow Economic evaluation and priority setting |
Jason Ong Associate Professor (Hon) Economic evaluation and Preferences and behaviour |
Catherine Pitt Assistant Professor of Health Economics and Policy Health systems and organisation Economic evaluation and priority setting |
| Timothy Powell-Jackson Associate Professor of Health Economics Policy evaluation Health systems and organisation |
Simon Procter |
Matthew Quaife Assistant Professor Economic evaluation and priority setting Preferences and behaviour |
| Zia Sadique Assistant Professor of Health Economics Economic evaluation and priority setting Policy evaluation |
Marie Sanderson Research Fellow Health systems and organisations |
Frank Sandmann Research Fellow Economic evaluation and priority setting |
|
Neha Singh |
Sedona Sweeney Assistant Professor of Health Economics Economic evaluation and priority setting |
Stefanie Tan |
| Henning Tarp-Jensen Associate Professor of Macroeconomics and Simulation Modelling |
Fern Terris-Prestholt Associate Professor in Economics of HIV Economic evaluation and priority setting Preferences and behaviour |
Sergio Torres Rueda |
|
Jack Williams |
Virginia Wiseman Associate Professor Economic evaluation and priority setting Health systems and organisation |
Nichola Kitson Research Fellow Economic evaluation and priority setting |
| Meghna Ranganathan Assistant Professor Policy evaluation |
Loveday Penn-Kekana Assistant Professor Health systems and organisation |
Julia Lohmann Research Fellow |
Honoraries
| Hannah-Rose Douglas Associate Professor |
Ulla Griffiths Associate Professor Economic evaluation and priority setting |
Lorna Guinness Associate Professor Economic evaluation and priority setting |
| Aurelia Lepine Assistant Professor Policy evaluation |
Francisco Pozo-Martin Research Fellow Economic evaluation |
Students
|
Nikita Arora |
Henry Cust |
Frederik Federspiel PhD candidate Economics of health systems and organisations |
| Rym Ghouma PhD candidate Preferences and behaviour Policy evaluation |
Darshini Govindasamy PhD candidate Policy evaluation |
Martin Harker PhD candidate |
| Justine Hsu PhD candidate Economic evaluation and priority setting Policy evaluation |
Heather Ingold PhD candidate |
Prabhdeep Kaur PhD candidate |
| Jennifer Ljungqvist PhD candidate |
Rahab Mbau PhD candidate Economic evaluation and priority setting |
Halima Mohamed PhD candidate |
|
Dorota Osipovic |
Suladda Pongutta PhD candidate |
Miguel Pugliese-Garcia PhD candidate |
| Ian Ross PhD candidate Economic evaluation and priority setting |
Ahmad Salehi PhD candidate |
Linda Sande PhD candidate Economic evaluation and priority setting |
|
Sarah Tougher
|
Muntaqa Umar-Sadiq PhD candidate |
Takuya Yamanuka PhD candidate |
Economic evaluation and priority setting
- 2020
-
ABBAS, KM. ; VAN ZANDVOORT, K. ; Brisson, M. ; JIT, M. ; Effects of updated demography, disability weights, and cervical cancer burden on estimates of human papillomavirus vaccination impact at the global, regional, and national levels: a PRIME modelling study. The Lancet Global Health, (2020).8 (4), DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30022-X.
BATH, D. ; GOODMAN, C. ; YEUNG, S. ; Modelling the cost-effectiveness of introducing subsidised malaria rapid diagnostic tests in the private retail sector in sub-Saharan Africa. BMJ Global Health, (2020).5 (5), DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002138.
Dowie J. Covid-19, the Swedish ‘Experiment’, and me Studies In Health Technology and Informatics forthcoming
Dowie J, Rajput VK, Kaltoft MK. Evaluations of decision support tools are preference-sensitive and interest-conflicted : the case of deliberation aids Studies In Health Technology and Informatics forthcoming
JIT, M. ; Ng, DH L. ; Luangasanatip, N. ; Sandmann, F. ; ATKINS, KE. ; Robotham, JV. ; Pouwels, KB. ; Quantifying the economic cost of antibiotic resistance and the impact of related interventions: rapid methodological review, conceptual framework and recommendations for future studies. BMC Medicine, (2020).18 (1), DOI: 10.1186/s12916-020-1507-2.
Kaltoft MK, Dowie J. Decision quality is a preference-sensitive formative concept: how do some existing measures compare? Studies In Health Technology and Informatics 270 562-566
Li, X. ; Willem, L. ; Antillon, M. ; Bilcke, J. ; JIT, M. ; Beutels, P. ; Health and economic burden of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease and the cost-effectiveness of potential interventions against RSV among children under 5 years in 72 Gavi-eligible countries. BMC Medicine, (2020).18 (1), DOI: 10.1186/s12916-020-01537-6.
MURPHY, A. ; PALAFOX, B. ; Walli-Attaei, M. ; POWELL-JACKSON, T. ; Rangarajan, S. ; Alhabib, KF. ; Avezum, AJ. ; Calik, KB T. ; Chifamba, J. ; Choudhury, T. ; Dagenais, G. ; Dans, AL. ; Gupta, R. ; Iqbal, R. ; Kaur, M. ; Kelishadi, R. ; Khatib, R. ; Kruger, IM. ; Kutty, VR. ; Lear, SA. ; Li, W. ; Lopez-Jaramillo, P. ; Mohan, V. ; Mony, PK. ; Orlandini, A. ; Rosengren, A. ; Rosnah, I. ; Seron, P. ; Teo, K. ; Tse, LA. ; Tsolekile, L. ; Wang, Y. ; Wielgosz, A. ; Yan, R. ; Yeates, KE. ; Yusoff, K. ; Zatonska, K. ; HANSON, K. ; Yusuf, S. ; McKee, M. ; The household economic burden of non-communicable diseases in 18 countries. BMJ Global Health, (2020).5 (2), DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002040.
Prinja, S. ; Chauhan, AS. ; Rajsekhar, K. ; Downey, L. ; Bahuguna, P. ; Sachin, O. ; GUINNESS, L. ; Addressing the Cost Data Gap for Universal Healthcare Coverage in India: A Call to Action. Value in Health Regional Issues, (2020).21, 226-229. DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2019.11.003.
Rajput VK, Dowie J, Kaltoft MK.Are Clinical Decision Support Systems compatible with patient-centred care? Studies In Health Technology and Informatics 270 532 - 536
Rajput VK, Dowie J, Kaltoft MK. Patients with multiple Long-Term Conditions: meeting the challenges of Personalised Decision Making Studies In Health Technology and Informatics forthcoming
Roberts, K. ; Macleod, J. ; Metcalfe, C. ; Hollingworth, W. ; WILLIAMS, J. ; Muir, P. ; Vickerman, P. ; Clement, C. ; Gordon, F. ; Irving, W. ; Waldron, C-A. ; North, P. ; Moore, P. ; Simmons, R. ; MINERS, A. ; Horwood, J. ; Hickman, M. ; Cost effectiveness of an intervention to increase uptake of hepatitis C virus testing and treatment (HepCATT): cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), (2020).368, m322-m322. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m322.
SWEENEY, S. ; VASSALL, A. ; GUINNESS, L. ; Siapka, M. ; Chimbindi, N. ; Mudzengi, D. ; Gomez, GB. ; Examining Approaches to Estimate the Prevalence of Catastrophic Costs Due to Tuberculosis from Small-Scale Studies in South Africa. PharmacoEconomics, (2020).38 (6), DOI: 10.1007/s40273-020-00898-3.
Vogelzang, M. ; TERRIS-PRESTHOLT, F. ; Vickerman, P. ; Delany-Moretlwe, S. ; Travill, D. ; QUAIFE, M. ; Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Among Heterosexual Men in South Africa: A Cost-Utility Modeling Analysis. JAIDS: Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 84 (2), DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002327.
Yang, J. ; ATKINS, KE. ; Feng, L. ; Baguelin, M. ; Wu, P. ; Yan, H. ; Lau, EH Y. ; Wu, JT. ; LIU, Y. ; Cowling, BJ. ; JIT, M. ; Yu, H. ; Cost-effectiveness of introducing national seasonal influenza vaccination for adults aged 60 years and above in mainland China: a modelling analysis. BMC medicine, (2020).18 (1), DOI: 10.1186/s12916-020-01545-6.
- 2019
-
Biddle, L. ; MINERS, A. ; Bozorgmehr, K. ; Cost-utility of screening for depression among asylum seekers: a modelling study in Germany. Health Policy, (2019).123 (9), DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.05.011.
Cambiano, V. ; JOHNSON, CC. ; Hatzold, K. ; TERRIS-PRESTHOLT, F. ; Maheswaran, H. ; Thirumurthy, H. ; Figueroa, C. ; Cowan, FM. ; Sibanda, EL. ; Ncube, G. ; Revill, P. ; Baggaley, RC. ; CORBETT, EL. ; Phillips, A. ; For Working Group on Cost Effectiveness of HIV sel,; The impact and cost-effectiveness of community-based HIV self-testing in sub-Saharan Africa: a health economic and modelling analysis. Journal of the International AIDS Society, (2019).22 Sup (S1), DOI: 10.1002/jia2.25243.
Chen, C. ; Cervero Liceras, F. ; FLASCHE, S. ; Sidharta, S. ; Yoong, J. ; SUNDARAM, N. ; JIT, M. ; Effect and cost-effectiveness of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination: a global modelling analysis. LANCET GLOBAL HEALTH, (2019).7 (1), DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30422-4.
DOWIE, J. ; Kaltoft, MK. ; Uncertainty-Adjusted Translation for Preference-Sensitive Decision Support. Studies in health technology and informatics, (2019).258, DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-959-1-174.
Drake, T. ; MEDLEY, G. ; VASSALL, A. ; Gomez, G. ; Equity, economic evaluation, and disease transmission modelling – 26-27th March 2018: Pre-meeting reviews. F1000Research (2019).DOI: 10.7490/f1000research.1116870.1.
Eaton, JW. ; TERRIS-PRESTHOLT, F. ; Cambiano, V. ; Sands, A. ; Baggaley, RC. ; Hatzold, K. ; CORBETT, EL. ; Kalua, T. ; Jahn, A. ; JOHNSON, CC. ; Optimizing HIV testing services in sub-Saharan Africa: cost and performance of verification testing with HIV self-tests and tests for triage. Journal of the International AIDS Society, (2019).22 Sup (S1), DOI: 10.1002/jia2.25237.
Hippner, P. ; SUMNER, T. ; HOUBEN, RM. ; Cardenas, V. ; VASSALL, A. ; BOZZANI, F. ; Mudzengi, D. ; Mvusi, L. ; Churchyard, G. ; WHITE, RG. ; Application of provincial data in mathematical modelling to inform sub-national tuberculosis program decision-making in South Africa. PloS one, (2019).14 (1), DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209320.
Kaltoft, MK. ; DOWIE, J. ; Risk Classifications Interfere with Preference-Sensitive Decision Support. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, (2019).261, DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-975-1-217.
Mangenah, C. ; Mwenge, L. ; Sande, L. ; AHMED, N. ; D'ELBÉE, M. ; Chiwawa, P. ; Chigwenah, T. ; Kanema, S. ; Mutseta, MN. ; Nalubamba, M. ; Chilongosi, R. ; INDRAVUDH, P. ; Sibanda, EL. ; NEUMAN, M. ; Ncube, G. ; Ong, JJ. ; Mugurungi, O. ; Hatzold, K. ; JOHNSON, CC. ; AYLES, H. ; CORBETT, EL. ; Cowan, FM. ; Maheswaran, H. ; TERRIS-PRESTHOLT, F. ; Economic cost analysis of door-to-door community-based distribution of HIV self-test kits in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Journal of the International AIDS Society, (2019).22 Sup (S1), DOI: 10.1002/jia2.25255.
PEARSON, CA B. ; ABBAS, KM. ; CLIFFORD, S. ; FLASCHE, S. ; Hladish, TJ. ; Serostatus testing and dengue vaccine cost-benefit thresholds. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, (2019).16 (157), DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2019.0234.
Pillai, N. ; Foster, N. ; Hanifa, Y. ; Ndlovu, N. ; FIELDING, K. ; Churchyard, G. ; Chihota, V. ; GRANT, AD. ; VASSALL, A. ; Patient costs incurred by people living with HIV/AIDS prior to ART initiation in primary healthcare facilities in Gauteng, South Africa. PloS one, (2019).14 (2), DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210622.
PULLAN, R. ; HALLIDAY, K. ; OSWALD, W. ; Mcharo, C. ; BEAUMONT, E. ; KEPHA, S. ; WITEK-MCMANUS, S. ; Gichuki, P. ; ALLEN, E. ; DRAKE, T. ; PITT, C. ; Matendechero, S. ; Gwayi-Chore, M-C. ; Anderson, R. ; Njenga, S. ; BROOKER, S. ; Mwandawiro, CS. ; Effects, equity, and cost of school-based and community-wide treatment strategies for soil-transmitted helminths in Kenya: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet, (2019).393 (10185), 2039-2050. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32591-1.
SUMNER, T. ; BOZZANI, F. ; Mudzengi, D. ; Hippner, P. ; HOUBEN, RM. ; Cardenas, V. ; VASSALL, A. ; WHITE, RG. ; Estimating the Impact of Tuberculosis Case Detection in Constrained Health Systems: An Example of Case-Finding in South Africa. American Journal of Epidemiology, (2019).188 (6), DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwz038.
SWEENEY, S. ; Ward, Z. ; PLATT, L. ; GUINNESS, L. ; Hickman, M. ; Hope, V. ; Maher, L. ; Iversen, J. ; Hutchinson, SJ. ; Smith, J. ; Ayres, R. ; Hainey, I. ; Vickerman, P. ; Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of existing needle and syringe programmes in preventing hepatitis C transmission in people who inject drugs. Addiction (Abingdon, England), (2019).114 (3), DOI: 10.1111/add.14519.
Turner, HC. ; Lauer, JA. ; Tran, BX. ; Teerawattananon, Y. ; JIT, M. ; Adjusting for Inflation and Currency Changes Within Health Economic Studies. Value in Health, (2019).22 (9), DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.03.021.
Wilkinson, T. ; BOZZANI, F. ; VASSALL, A. ; Remme, M. ; Sinanovic, E. ; Comparing the Application of CEA and BCA to Tuberculosis Control Interventions in South Africa. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, (2019).10 (S1), DOI: 10.1017/bca.2019.2.
WILLIAMS, J. ; MINERS, A. ; Harris, R. ; Mandal, S. ; Simmons, R. ; Ireland, G. ; Hickman, M. ; Gore, C. ; Vickerman, P. ; Cost-Effectiveness of One-Time Birth Cohort Screening for Hepatitis C as Part of the National Health Service Health Check Program in England. Value in Health, (2019).22 (11), DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.06.006.
Policy evaluation
- 2020
-
LAW, C. ; CORNELSEN, L. ; Adams, J. ; Pell, D. ; Rutter, H. ; White, M. ; Smith, R. ; The impact of UK soft drinks industry levy on manufacturers' domestic turnover. Economics & Human Biology, (2020).37, DOI: 10.1016/j.ehb.2020.100866.
LAW, C. ; CORNELSEN, L. ; Adams, J. ; Penney, T. ; Rutter, H. ; White, M. ; Smith, R. ; An analysis of the stock market reaction to the announcements of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy. Economics & Human Biology (2020).DOI: 10.1016/j.ehb.2019.100834.
O'Neill, S. ; Kreif, N. ; Sutton, M. ; GRIEVE, R. ; A comparison of methods for health policy evaluation with controlled pre-post designs. Health services research, (2020).55 (2), 328-338. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13274.
Prinja, S. ; Chauhan, AS. ; Rajsekhar, K. ; Downey, L. ; Bahuguna, P. ; Sachin, O. ; GUINNESS, L. ; Addressing the Cost Data Gap for Universal Healthcare Coverage in India: A Call to Action. Value in Health Regional Issues, (2020).21, 226-229. DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2019.11.003.
- 2019
-
Bains, I. ; Choi, YH. ; Soldan, K. ; JIT, M. ; Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of primary cytology versus human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening in England. International journal of gynecological cancer, (2019).29 (4), DOI: 10.1136/ijgc-2018-000161.
Choumert‐Nkolo, J. ; CUST, H. ; Taylor, C. ; Using paradata to collect better survey data: Evidence from a household survey in Tanzania. Review of Development Economics, (2019).23 (2), DOI: 10.1111/rode.12583.
GRECO, G. ; Power, Social Exclusion and the “Good Life”: the Importance of Measuring What Really Counts. Journal of human development and capabilities, (2019).19 (4), DOI: 10.1080/19452829.2018.1522043.
Hammond, J. ; Mason, T. ; Sutton, M. ; Hall, A. ; MAYS, N. ; Coleman, A. ; ALLEN, P. ; Warwick-Giles, L. ; Checkland, K. ; Exploring the impacts of the 2012 Health and Social Care Act reforms to commissioning on clinical activity in the English NHS: a mixed methods study of cervical screening. BMJ Open, (2019).9 (4), DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024156.
JENSEN, HT. ; KEOGH-BROWN, MR. ; Shankar, B. ; Aekplakorn, W. ; Basu, S. ; Cuevas, S. ; DANGOUR, AD. ; Gheewala, SH. ; GREEN, R. ; JOY, EJ M. ; Rojroongwasinkul, N. ; Thaiprasert, N. ; Smith, RD. ; Palm oil and dietary change: Application of an integrated macroeconomic, environmental, demographic, and health modelling framework for Thailand. Food Policy, (2019).83, DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.12.003.
LAW, C. ; GREEN, R. ; KADIYALA, S. ; Shankar, B. ; KNAI, C. ; BROWN, KA. ; DANGOUR, AD. ; CORNELSEN, L. ; Purchase trends of processed foods and beverages in urban India. Global Food Security, (2019).23, DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2019.05.007.
RANGANATHAN, M. ; KNIGHT, L. ; ABRAMSKY, T. ; Muvhango, L. ; Polzer Ngwato, T. ; Mbobelatsi, M. ; FERRARI, G. ; Watts, C. ; Stöckl, H. ; Associations Between Women's Economic and Social Empowerment and Intimate Partner Violence: Findings From a Microfinance Plus Program in Rural North West Province, South Africa. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, (2019).34 (7), DOI: 10.1177/0886260519836952.
Economics of health systems and organisations
- 2020
-
Anselmi, L. ; Borghi, J. ; Brown, GW. ; Fichera, E. ; Hanson, K. ; Kadungure, A. ; KOVACS, R. ; Kristensen, SR. ; SINGH, NS. ; Sutton, M. ; Pay for Performance: A Reflection on How a Global Perspective Could Enhance Policy and Research. International Journal of Health Policy and Management (2020).DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2020.23.
Coutrot, IP. ; Smith, R. ; CORNELSEN, L. ; Is the rise of crowdfunding for medical expenses in the UK symptomatic of systemic gaps in health and social care?. JOURNAL OF HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH & POLICY (2020).DOI: 10.1177/1355819619897949.
Dennis, ML. ; Benova, L. ; GOODMAN, C. ; Barasa, E. ; Abuya, T. ; Campbell, OM R. ; Examining user fee reductions in public primary healthcare facilities in Kenya, 1997-2012: effects on the use and content of antenatal care. International Journal for Equity in Health, (2020).19 (1), DOI: 10.1186/s12939-020-1150-8.
Dingle, A. ; Schäferhoff, M. ; BORGHI, J. ; Lewis Sabin, M. ; Arregoces, L. ; MARTINEZ-ALVAREZ, M. ; PITT, C. ; Estimates of aid for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health: findings from application of the Muskoka2 method, 2002-17. The Lancet. Global health, (2020).8 (3), e374-e386. DOI: 10.1016/s2214-109x(20)30005-x.
FRASER, A. ; TAN, S. ; Boaz, A. ; MAYS, N. ; Backing what works? Social Impact Bonds and evidence-informed policy and practice. Public Money and Management, (2020).40 (3), DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2020.1714303.
Kapologwe, NA. ; Kibusi, SM. ; BORGHI, J. ; Gwajima, DO. ; Kalolo, A. ; Assessing health system responsiveness in primary health care facilities in Tanzania. BMC health services research, (2020).20 (1), DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-4961-9.
KOVACS, RJ. ; POWELL-JACKSON, T. ; Kristensen, SR. ; SINGH, N. ; BORGHI, J. ; How are pay-for-performance schemes in healthcare designed in low- and middle-income countries? Typology and systematic literature review. BMC health services research, (2020).20 (1), DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-05075-y.
MARTINEZ-ALVAREZ, M. ; FEDERSPIEL, F. ; SINGH, NS. ; Schäferhoff, M. ; Lewis Sabin, M. ; Onoka, C. ; MOUNIER-JACK, S. ; BORGHI, J. ; PITT, C. ; Equity of resource flows for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health: are those most in need being left behind?. BMJ, (2020).368, DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m305.
SANDERSON, M. ; ALLEN, P. ; Moran, V. ; McDermott, I. ; OSIPOVIC, D. ; Agreeing the allocation of scarce resources in the English NHS: Ostrom, common pool resources and the role of the state. Social Science and Medicine, (2020).250, DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112888.
Wilson, R. ; Fraser, A. ; Kimmitt, J. ; TAN, S. ; McHugh, N. ; Lowe, T. ; Warner, M. ; Baines, S. ; Carter, E. ; Editorial: Whither Social Impact Bonds (SIBs): the future of social investment?. PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT, (2020).40 (3), 179-182. DOI: 10.1080/09540962.2020.1714287.
- 2019
-
Asante, AD. ; Ir, P. ; Jacobs, B. ; Supon, L. ; LIVERANI, M. ; Hayen, A. ; Jan, S. ; WISEMAN, V. ; Who benefits from healthcare spending in Cambodia? Evidence for a universal health coverage policy. Health policy and planning, (2019).34 (Supple), DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czz011.
CORNELSEN, L. ; BERGER, N. ; CUMMINS, S. ; Smith, RD. ; Socio-economic patterning of expenditures on 'out-of-home' food and non-alcoholic beverages by product and place of purchase in Britain. Social Science and Medicine, (2019).235, DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112361.
Fang, H. ; Eggleston, K. ; HANSON, K. ; Wu, M. ; Enhancing financial protection under China's social health insurance to achieve universal health coverage. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), (2019).365, DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l2378.
FRASER, A. ; TAN, S. ; MAYS, N. ; To SIB or not to SIB? A comparative analysis of the commissioning processes of two proposed health-focused Social Impact Bond financed interventions in England. Journal of Economic Policy Reform (2019).DOI: 10.1080/17487870.2019.1572508.
HANSON, K. ; Barasa, E. ; Honda, A. ; Panichkriangkrai, W. ; Patcharanarumol, W. ; Strategic Purchasing: The Neglected Health Financing Function for Pursuing Universal Health Coverage in Low-and Middle-Income Countries Comment on "What's Needed to Develop Strategic Purchasing in Healthcare? Policy Lessons from a Realist Review". International Journal of Health Policy and Management, (2019).8 (8), DOI: 10.15171/ijhpm.2019.34.
Ir, P. ; Jacobs, B. ; Asante, AD. ; LIVERANI, M. ; Jan, S. ; Chhim, S. ; WISEMAN, V. ; Exploring the determinants of distress health financing in Cambodia. Health policy and planning, (2019).34 (Supple), DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czz006.
MANDEVILLE, KL. ; Barker, R. ; Packham, A. ; Sowerby, C. ; Yarrow, K. ; Patrick, H. ; Financial interests of patient organisations contributing to technology assessment at England’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: policy review. BMJ, (2019).364, DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k5300.
TAN, S. ; FRASER, A. ; McHugh, N. ; Warner, M. ; Widening perspectives on social impact bonds. Journal of Economic Policy Reform (2019).DOI: 10.1080/17487870.2019.1568249.
Preferences and behaviour
- 2020
-
Accordion content 1.
- 2019
-
Choko, AT. ; CORBETT, EL. ; Stallard, N. ; Maheswaran, H. ; Lepine, A. ; JOHNSON, CC. ; Sakala, D. ; Kalua, T. ; Kumwenda, M. ; HAYES, R. ; FIELDING, K. ; HIV self-testing alone or with additional interventions, including financial incentives, and linkage to care or prevention among male partners of antenatal care clinic attendees in Malawi: An adaptive multi-arm, multi-stage cluster randomised trial. PLoS medicine, (2019).16 (1), DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002719.
CORNELSEN, L. ; Mazzocchi, M. ; Smith, RD. ; Fat tax or thin subsidy? How price increases and decreases affect the energy and nutrient content of food and beverage purchases in Great Britain. Social Science & Medicine, (2019).230, DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.04.003.
DOWIE, J. ; Kaltoft, MK. ; Translating the Results of Discrete Choice Experiments into p-/e-/m-Health Decision Support Tools. Studies in health technology and informatics, (2019).261, DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-975-1-193.
KOVACS, RJ. ; Lagarde, M. ; CAIRNS, J. ; Measuring patient trust: Comparing measures from a survey and an economic experiment. Health Economics, (2019).28 (5), DOI: 10.1002/hec.3870.
KUTEESA, MO. ; QUAIFE, M. ; Biraro, S. ; Katumba, KR. ; SEELEY, J. ; Kamali, A. ; Nakanjako, D. ; Acceptability and Predictors of Uptake of Anti-retroviral Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Among Fishing Communities in Uganda: A Cross-Sectional Discrete Choice Experiment Survey. AIDS and behavior, (2019).23 (10), DOI: 10.1007/s10461-019-02418-7.
Luyten, J. ; Kessels, R. ; ATKINS, KE. ; JIT, M. ; VAN HOEK, AJ. ; Quantifying the public's view on social value judgments in vaccine decision-making: A discrete choice experiment. SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, (2019).228, DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.03.025.
ONG, JJ. ; Neke, N. ; Wambura, M. ; Kuringe, E. ; Grund, JM. ; Plotkin, M. ; D'ELBÉE, M. ; Torres-Rueda, S. ; Mahler, HR. ; WEISS, HA. ; TERRIS-PRESTHOLT, F. ; Use of Lotteries for the Promotion of Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision Service: A Discrete-Choice Experiment among Adult Men in Tanzania. Medical Decision Making, (2019).39 (4), DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19852095.
Sibanda, EL. ; D'ELBÉE, M. ; Maringwa, G. ; Ruhode, N. ; Tumushime, M. ; Madanhire, C. ; Ong, JJ. ; INDRAVUDH, P. ; Watadzaushe, C. ; JOHNSON, CC. ; Hatzold, K. ; Taegtmeyer, M. ; HARGREAVES, JR. ; CORBETT, EL. ; Cowan, FM. ; TERRIS-PRESTHOLT, F. ; Applying user preferences to optimize the contribution of HIV self-testing to reaching the "first 90" target of UNAIDS Fast-track strategy: results from discrete choice experiments in Zimbabwe. Journal of the International AIDS Society, (2019).22 Sup (S1), DOI: 10.1002/jia2.25245.
TERRIS-PRESTHOLT, F. ; Neke, N. ; Grund, JM. ; Plotkin, M. ; Kuringe, E. ; Osaki, H. ; Ong, JJ. ; TUCKER, JD. ; Mshana, G. ; Mahler, H. ; WEISS, HA. ; Wambura, M. ; VMMC study team,; Using discrete choice experiments to inform the design of complex interventions. Trials, (2019).20 (1), DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3186-x.
Subscribe to our twice-yearly newsletter and receive the latest updates from CHIL, including research, teaching and policy engagement highlights.
Read the latest issue
Read previous issues
The Centre for Health Economics in London (CHiL) is looking forward to hosting Winter 2021 Health Economists' Study Group (HESG). HESG is the UK health economics association. The meeting will take place between Wednesday 6 January and Friday 8 January, and due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, will take place virtually.
The HESG meeting offers a unique opportunity for health economists with the UK, and their collaborators overseas to engage in-depth discussion of early-stage health economics research. Group meetings have a distinctive style and feel, attempting to maintain a study group atmosphere despite large numbers. All papers are pre-circulated and discussed in hour-long sessions using discussants rather than author presentations. Despite the virtual nature of the meeting, as much of the traditional HESG approach will be retained as is possible.
We look forward to welcoming you, online, to LSHTM.
Registration
- Registration has been extended until the 5th of January, 23:59pm
- Cost for registration is £50 for members and £80 for non-members.
- Membership can be obtained by visiting the HESG website. Membership costs £15.
Abstracts and Full Papers
- Abstract submission opens on Wednesday 12th August and closes Friday 18th September. Notification of acceptance will be sent by 11 October.
- Full paper submission closes on Friday 27th November 2020.
- Submit an abstract on the HESG website through the following link: https://hesg.org.uk/meetings/abstract-submission/
- Submit a full paper on the HESG website through the following link: https://hesg.org.uk/meetings/paper-submission
- The final programme will be made available on this and the HESG website from December 2020.
Frequently asked questions
- How will the programme change to accommodate the virtual conference?
-
The change to a virtual environment necessarily means some changes to the way the event is organised. Most significantly, we will change the balance of presentations on each day since the first morning and last afternoon no longer are needed for travel. We will therefore spread the sessions more evenly over the three days. Our experience is that online meetings can be tiring and so we will space the sessions to allow breaks between and anticipate having four sessions on each of the days (with the number of parallel sessions determined by the number of papers submitted).
- Will the usual HESG format be used?
-
Yes. We have had a trial run with the HESG format internally and we believe that the usual HESG format of papers taken as read, discussant presentations with clarifications from the authors, before opening up to the floor for questions will transfer well to the online environment
- How will social elements of the programme be included?
-
Alongside the programme we also plan to include the usual Early Career Researchers, Heads of Group, and HESG members' meetings. We are currently considering options for a possible plenary together with some form of social event. This is more challenging online and we would welcome suggestions from the HESG membership as to how (if at all) this might be achieved based on others’ experience with online meetings? Please email all suggestions to: hesg@lshtm.ac.uk
Covid-19 reports, webinars and updates
We are a member of C19economics.org that collates health economic research on COVID-19 globally.
- Joining up health and economic policy to address COVID-19
-
Prof Peter Piot (LSHTM), Prof Edwine Barasa (KEMRI-Wellcome Trust), Prof John Edmunds (LSHTM), Dr Gesine Meyer Rath (Boston University), Mr Paul Johnson (Institute for Fiscal Studies), and Prof Anna Vassall (LSHTM) discuss joining up health and economic policy to address Covid-19 during the HESG Winter 2021 Meeting.
The meeting was hosted online by the Centre for Health Economics in London, LSHTM, from 6th-8th January 2021
Click this link to watch the video recording
- The Need for Novel Approaches in Assessing the Value of COVID-19 Vaccines
-
Authors: Aris Angelis, Rob Baltussen, and Tommi Tervonen
Numerous coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine development programs are under way, and several vaccines with potentially differing clinical and manufacturing profiles are expected to reach the market. We argue for the need to adopt new approaches for assessing the value of COVID-19 vaccines, calling for clinical, manufacturing and cost aspects to be complemented by societal value considerations to inform the vaccines' further development, reimbursement and pricing decisions.
For full text review click here
-
Launch: a platform to support the researchers and decision-makers generating and using health economics research to tackle COVID-19
-
Since the beginning of the outbreak, the scientific community has worked around the clock to produce evidence to support decision-makers in all aspects of COVID management. As of November 2020, we have over 52,000 articles published in peer reviewed journals and pre-prints (as indexed by collabovid.org). Those unprecedented global collective research efforts already boasts many successes: earlier this week, Pfizer announced that a vaccine showed a 90% effectiveness. The RECOVERY trial in the UK found that Dexamethasone, if administered to patients on ventilation or oxygen support, could lead to a significant reduction in 28-day mortality rates. Despite costly early failures, different manufacturers are now also producing rapid test kits to be widely rolled out, especially in low-resource settings.
The response to COVID-19 requires governments to develop and evaluate a vast number of policies and guidance to tackle the outbreak and protect the health of its populations. Health economics can support decision-makers in appraising different investments and policy options, consider trade-offs, as well as adopt a ‘whole of health’ approach to the response. However, health economics research has been largely missing from this growing literature. This is problematic, especially in low and middle income countries, where budget constraint are significant (current health expenditure – from all sources- was less than $30 per person per year in 10 countries according to the WHO GHED database).
Health economics can support with (i) managing the health sector response (e.g. planning for medical supplies and resources to treat covid patients), (ii) considering trade-offs between COVID and other health priorities in the health sector, (iii) considering trade-offs with the wider economy (through the application of cost-benefit analysis, which can be relevant when considering lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions), and estimating the health impacts of the COVID response using a whole of health approach.
The C19economics.org platform
It has become obvious that many of us will live with COVID for the months ahead. For our work, this means continuation in restrictions of travel, limited face-to-face interactions, and on-going research or policy work to support planning of the COVID response, under substantial time and political pressure. The C19economics.org platform has been launched to support policy-makers (and their advisers) and researchers working on health economics for COVID, with a focus on LMICs.
C19Economics.org was created to curate experiences, data, tools and analyses, facilitate the meeting of researchers and decision-makers and support health economists generate evidence for policy across LMIC settings in a demand driven and scientifically robust fashion. The goal is to facilitate the sharing of experiences and provide analysts with access to a focussed set of resources, a space to informally receive peer support and review each other’s work. In addition, the platform aims to provide decision makers and those who advise them with a space to link up with analysts, ask questions about research directly linking to their policy needs, and access summaries of relevant evidence.
To this aim, C19economics.org contains a repository of evidence, an insights page (including summaries, blogposts and other contributions from our members), a discussion forum (open to all, sign up required) and will be running regular webinars and events on request from C19economics platform users on research or decision-making. For instance, two webinars have already been lined up on “Webinar: Macroeconomic and health impact of COVID: the meeting of two communities” and “Estimating Clinical Management Costs of Covid-19 in LMICs”.
The beginnings of a community on health economics
Please go to C19economics.org to visit our platform and be connected to other researchers and decision-makers.
C19economics.org has been put together by a group of health economics practitioners, coordinated by iDSI (International Decision Support Initiative) and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). C19economics.org is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, UK Aid and the Wellcome Trust. Partners of the website include UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office and the Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program.
- Integrating economic and health evidence to inform Covid-19 policy in low- and middle- income countries
-
Authors: Anna Vassall, Sedona Sweeney, Edwine Barasa, Shankar Prinja, Marcus R Keogh-Brown, Henning Tarp Jensen, Richard Smith, Rob Baltussen, Rosalind M Eggo, Mark Jit
Covid-19 requires policy makers to consider evidence on both population health and economic welfare. Over the last two decades, the field of health economics has developed a range of analytical approaches and contributed to the institutionalisation of processes to employ economic evidence in health policy. We present a narrative review outlining how these approaches and processes need to be applied more widely to inform Covid-19 policy; highlighting where they may need to be adapted conceptually and methodologically, and providing examples of work to date. We focus on the evidential and policy needs of low- and middle- income countries; where there is an urgent need for evidence to navigate the policy trade-offs between health and economic well-being posed by the Covid-19 pandemic. For full text review click here
- The impact of Covid-19, associated behaviours and policies on the UK economy: A computable general equilibrium model
-
Authors: Marcus R.Keogh-Brown, Henning Tarp Jensen, W. John Edmunds, Richard D.Smith
We estimate the potential impact of COVID-19 on the United Kingdom economy, including direct disease effects, preventive public actions and associated policies. A sectoral, whole-economy macroeconomic model was linked to a population-wide epidemiological demographic model to assess the potential macroeconomic impact of COVID-19, together with policies to mitigate or suppress the pandemic by means of home quarantine, school closures, social distancing and accompanying business closures.
Our simulations indicate that, assuming a clinical attack rate of 48% and a case fatality ratio of 1.5%, COVID-19 alone would impose a direct health-related economic burden of £39.6bn (1.73% of GDP) on the UK economy. Mitigation strategies imposed for 12 weeks reduce case fatalities by 29%, but the total cost to the economy is £308bn (13.5% of GDP); £66bn (2.9% of GDP) of which is attributable to labour lost from working parents during school closures, and £201bn (8.8% of GDP) of which is attributable to business closures. Suppressing the pandemic over a longer period of time may reduce deaths by 95%, but the total cost to the UK economy also increases to £668bn (29.2% of GDP), where £166bn (7.3% of GDP) is attributable to school closures and 502bn (21.9% of GDP) to business closures.
Our analyses suggest Covid-19 has the potential to impose unprecedented economic costs on the UK economy, and whilst public actions are necessary to minimise mortality, the duration of school and business closures are key to determining the economic cost. The initial economic support package promised by the UK government may be proportionate to the costs of mitigating Covid-19, but without alternative measures to reduce the scale and duration of school and business closures, the economic support may be insufficient to compensate for longer term suppression of the pandemic which could generate an even greater health impact through major recession. For full text review click here
- The health sector cost of different policy responses to COVID-19 in low- and middle- income countries
-
Authors: Sergio Torres Rueda, Sedona Sweeney, Fiammetta Bozzani, Anna Vassall
Much attention has focussed in recent months on the impact that COVID-19 has on health sector capacity, including critical care bed capacity and resources such as personal protective equipment. However, much less attention has focussed on the overall cost to health sectors, including the full human resource costs and the health system costs to address the pandemic. Here we present estimates of the total costs of COVID-19 response in low- and middle-income countries for different scenarios of COVID-19 mitigation over a one year period. We find costs vary substantially by setting, but in some settings even mitigation scenarios place a substantial fiscal impact on the health system. We conclude that the choices facing many low- and middle- income countries, without further rapid emergency financial support, are stark, between fully funding an effective COVID-19 reponse or other core essential health services. For full text review click here
- The impact of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on health systems and household resources in Africa and South Asia
-
Authors: Nicholas G Davies, Sedona Sweeney, Sergio Torres-Rueda, Fiammetta Bozzani, Nichola Kitson, Edwine Barasa, Simon Procter, Matthew Quaife, LSHTM Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases COVID-19 Working Group, Rosalind M Eggo, Anna Vassall, Mark Jit
Background. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemics strain health systems and households. Health systems in Africa and South Asia may be particularly at risk due to potential high prevalence of risk factors for severe disease, large household sizes and limited healthcare capacity. Methods. We investigated the impact of an unmitigated COVID-19 epidemic on health system resources and costs, and household costs, in Karachi, Delhi, Nairobi, Addis Ababa and Johannesburg. We adapted a dynamic model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission and disease to capture country-specific demography and contact patterns. The epidemiological model was then integrated into an economic framework that captured city-specific health systems and household resource use. Findings. The cities severely lack intensive care beds, healthcare workers and financial resources to meet demand during an unmitigated COVID-19 epidemic. A highly mitigated COVID-19 epidemic, under optimistic assumptions, may avoid overwhelming hospital bed capacity in some cities, but not critical care capacity. Interpretation. Viable mitigation strategies encompassing a mix of responses need to be established to expand healthcare capacity, reduce peak demand for healthcare resources, minimise progression to critical care and shield those at greatest risk of severe disease. For full text review click here
- The potential health and economic value of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination alongside physical distancing in the UK: transmission model-based future scenario analysis and economic evaluation
-
Authors: Frank Sandmann, Nicholas Davies, Centre for the Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases COVID-19 working group, Anna Vassall, W John Edmunds, Mark Jit
Background: In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the UK adopted mandatory physical distancing measures in March 2020. Vaccines against the newly emerged severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may become available as early as late 2020. We explored the health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 immunisation alongside physical distancing scenarios in the UK. Methods We used an age-structured dynamic-transmission and economic model to explore different scenarios of immunisation programmes over ten years. Assuming vaccines are effective in 5-64 year olds, we compared vaccinating 90% of individuals in this age group to no vaccination. We assumed either vaccine effectiveness of 25% and 1-year protection and 90% re-vaccinated annually, or 75% vaccine effectiveness and 10-year protection and 10% re-vaccinated annually. Natural immunity was assumed to last 45 weeks in the base case. We also explored the additional impact of physical distancing. We considered benefits from disease prevented in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs to the healthcare payer versus the national economy. We discounted at 3.5% annually and monetised health impact at 20,000 per QALY to obtain the net monetary value, which we explored in sensitivity analyses. Findings Without vaccination and physical distancing, we estimated 147.9 million COVID-19 cases (95% uncertainty interval: 48.5 million, 198.7 million) and 2.8 million (770,000, 4.2 million) deaths in the UK over ten years. Vaccination with 75% vaccine effectiveness and 10-year protection may stop community transmission entirely for several years, whereas SARS-CoV-2 becomes endemic without highly effective vaccines. Introducing vaccination compared to no vaccination leads to economic gains (positive net monetary value) of 0.37 billion to +1.33 billion across all physical distancing and vaccine effectiveness scenarios from the healthcare perspective, but net monetary values of physical distancing scenarios may be negative from societal perspective if the daily national economy losses are persistent and large. Interpretation Our model findings highlight the substantial health and economic value of introducing SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Given uncertainty around both characteristics of the eventually licensed vaccines and long-term COVID-19 epidemiology, our study provides early insights about possible future scenarios in a post-vaccination era from an economic and epidemiological perspective. For full text review click here
- Routine immunisation is essential, even during the COVID-19 pandemic
-
Authors: Kaja Abbas, Simon R Procter, Kevin van Zandvoort, Andrew Clark, Sebastian Funk, Tewodaj Mengistu, Dan Hogan, Emily Dansereau, Mark Jit, Stefan Flasche, LSHTM CMMID COVID-19 Working Group.
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought human activity to a standstill and now threatens to undermine routine immunisation programmes. On March 26, 2020, the World Health Organization recommended that while routine immunisation programmes should continue, mass vaccination campaigns should be temporarily suspended because they could increase the spread of the virus in communities. A benefit-risk analysis was conducted to weigh up the health benefits of continued routine infant immunisation delivery against the excess risk of COVID-19 infections in Africa.
The results are striking – if routine immunisation was continued, for each excess COVID-19 death (predominantly among elderly household members) due to an infection acquired during the vaccination visit and spread to household members of vaccinated children, around 14 to 267 future child deaths could be prevented. Without vaccination, these deaths could result from a range of diseases including measles, yellow fever, pertussis, meningitis, pneumonia, and diarrhoea.
If countries do decide to continue with routine immunisation during the COVID-19 pandemic, they will need to work out ways to reduce human contact. For example, between other families waiting or health care workers, or on public transport when travelling to the site. Vaccinators will be at high risk of infection because of the sheer numbers of people they will be coming into contact with and will need to maintain stringent standards of infection prevention such as wearing suitable personal protective equipment and frequent hand washing.
In addition, whether or not a country suspends immunisation services, it will be critical for it to provide catch-up immunisations for any children who missed their vaccines due to the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Please find the links below for the publication and related dissemination.
- Routine childhood immunisation during the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa: a benefit–risk analysis of health benefits versus excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection
- Benefits of routine childhood vaccines far outweigh risks of additional COVID-19 transmission in Africa, modelling study suggests
- Should countries stop vaccinations to halt the spread of COVID-19?
- Benefits of childhood vaccines outweigh risk of Covid-19 transmission, study finds
- Routine vaccinations during a pandemic – benefit or risk?
- Moving beyond ‘lives-saved’ from COVID-19
-
Andrew Briggs
Professor of Health Economics
May 15, 2020Epidemiological models of the COVID-19 pandemic have largely focused their efforts on exploring the effectiveness of different policies to prevent deaths and to avoid overloading the ability of health care systems to handle the onslaught of cases. As we move from an extended period of lockdown to easing restrictions, it is a good time to think about moving beyond the simple metric of ‘lives-saved’. In other less challenging times, years of life lost (YLL) and Disability-Adjusted Life Years lost (DALYs) or Quality-Adjusted Years of Life lost (QALYs) are the more usual policy tool.
Yet even conditional life-expectancy is poorly understood. Examples abound where supposed life expectancy is ‘estimated’ by subtracting current age from life expectancy at birth (not to pick on anyone in particular – but see this tweet about an article by Vince Cable which raises useful issues but falls into this exact trap). This is surprising, as conditional life expectancy (by age and sex) are routinely compiled by almost all countries in the world using standard life table methods.
In this short blog we outline a policy tool that can be easily employed to generate YLL and (discounted) QALYs lost due to deaths from COVID-19 in a way that facilitates adjustment for comorbidities, while putting pay to the conventional wisdom that suggests that victims who are old and with long term conditions ‘would have died anyway’ (see for this article for example).
The approach itself involves a three-step process to adapt a standard life table:
- Add a Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR) parameter to allow for increased mortality due to existing long-term conditions (LE).
- Adjust survival for background quality of life and the additional quality of life decrement associated with the long-term conditions (QALE).
- Discount to a net-present value (dQALY).
Full details of the method can be found in this accompanying technical note and the method is implemented for (currently) five countries in this spreadsheet tool.
Some results from the approach are below. Table 1 shows the estimates based on UK data and Table 2 shows the equivalent estimates for US data. The underlying life tables come from ONS and CDC. The age distributions at death for COVID-19 victims also comes from ONS and CDC (these are being updated on a weekly basis and so the results below may not be the most contemporary estimates). Finally, the background norm quality of life data comes from chapter 3 of the book published by members of the EuroQol Group.
What we see from the comparison of the UK and US results is that the conditional life expectancies are broadly comparable and it is clear that even with a SMR of 2 and a 10% reduction on quality of life for the remainder of life to adjust for comorbidities, the life expectancy and (discounted) QALY losses remain substantial for all age groups. Small differences between the UK and the US relate to the data sources, but by far the most important difference is the pattern of age at death from COVID-19 between the two countries. These are illustrated in Figure 1 showing that the UK has a relatively higher proportion of older victims of COVID-19.
How might this approach be utilised? Apart from showing that it is unlikely, at least for most victims, that they would have succumbed to their long-term conditions in any case, the approach outlined can be used to explore the wider implications of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, excess deaths have been widely reported and this approach could be used to explore whether the burden of excess deaths is greater than those from COVID itself.
An earlier version of this blog was highlighted in the linked article from the WSJ, although the focus of the article was on years of life lost without quality adjustment. More recently, a presentation based on this material was given as part of the ISPOR pre-conference plenary session on HEOR in the era of COVID-19 which was held on 14 May 2020. The video for the full session, including the panel of which this presentation was a part, can be found on the ISPOR website and you can also download a copy of the slides presented.
Table 1: Estimating the health burden associated with deaths from COVID-19 in the UK 
Table 2: Estimating the health burden associated with deaths from COVID-19 in the US 
Figure 1: Age distribution at death from COVID-19 in UK and US
Prof Peter Piot (LSHTM), Prof Edwine Barasa (KEMRI-Wellcome Trust), Prof John Edmunds (LSHTM), Dr Gesine Meyer Rath (Boston University), Mr Paul Johnson (Institute for Fiscal Studies), and Prof Anna Vassall (LSHTM) discuss joining up health and economic policy to address Covid-19 during the HESG Winter 2021 Meeting.
The meeting was hosted online by the Centre for Health Economics in London, LSHTM, from 6th-8th January 2021
We are looking for an economist with an interest in epidemiology, or an epidemiologist with an interest in economics, who is keen to use both economic and epidemiological models to understand the equity impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The work will be supported through the newly established COVID-19 Hub of the CGIAR (https://www.cgiar.org/). The Hub is hosted by the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health, and co-implemented by the International Food Policy Research Institute, the International Livestock Research Institute, the CGIAR System Organization, and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (https://on.cgiar.org/37OhpV3; https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/research/centres-projects-groups/agriculture-in…). Convening researchers, funders, and key stakeholders, the Hub supports national response and recovery work, across CGIAR research themes.
This post will be attached to the LSHTM’s Centre of Health Economics in London (CHIL), and will also work closely with colleagues at International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). The postholder will foster joint economic/epidemiological modelling and collaboration between IFPRI and LSHTM. In order to develop better understanding of health impacts and poverty impacts of COVID-19 mitigation efforts in LMICs, we are trying to integrate health interventions and policies into macroeconomic models that estimate the poverty and health equity impacts of policy options. Specific questions include:
- Vaccines: evaluating the options for short- and long-term delivery strategies in LMICs.
- We hope also to consider equity and the impacts of COVID-19 on specific sub-groups;
The role of the postholder will be to help build and use these joint economic/epidemiological models.
The post will involve working across teams, institutions and economic disciplines, and drafting of scientific publications and policy reports, with the chance to reach policy directly through the CGIAR network.
Candidates must have a PhD (or equivalent experience) in public health epidemiology or economics, as well as experience of modelling, working with large health data relating to AMR and health economic analysis and/or burden estimation. Familiarity with the R (or C++ or similar) programming language, and experience working on data from low and middle income countries, would be an advantage.
This post is full time FTE 1.0 and is available from 6th January 2021 to 31st December 2021. Salary will be on the Academic Grade 6 scale in the range of £40,011 - £ 45,437 per annum (inclusive of London Weighting). The post will be subject to the LSHTM terms and conditions of service.
Please visit the LSHTM website posting to make an on-line application
The IDSI (International Decision Support Initiative) and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) are pleased to announce the launch of the C19economics.org platform which aims to support policymakers and researchers working on COVID-19 globally with a focus on Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs).
Many of us will live with COVID for months ahead. For our work, this means continuation in restrictions of travel, limited face-to-face interactions, and on-going research or policy work to support planning of the COVID response, under substantial time and political pressure. The C19economics.org platform has been launched to support policy-makers (and their advisers) and researchers working on the health economics of COVID share experiences and network globally , with a focus on LMICs.
C19Economics.org was created to curate insights, data, tools and analyses, facilitate the meeting of researchers and decision-makers and support health economists generate evidence for policy across LMIC settings in a demand driven and scientifically robust fashion. The goal is to facilitate the global network of health economics working on COVID and provide analysts with access to a focussed set of resources, a space to informally receive peer support each other’s work. In addition, the platform aims to provide decision makers and those who advise them with a space to link up with analysts, ask questions about research directly linking to their policy needs, and access summaries of relevant evidence. To this aim, C19economics.org contains a repository of evidence, an insights page (including summaries, blogposts and more), a discussion forum (open to all, sign up required) and will be running regular webinars and events on request from C19economics platform users.
C19economics.org is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, UK Aid and the Wellcome Trust. Partners of the website include UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office and the Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program. Please join up today here and reach out to Nuru.Saadi@lshtm.ac.uk if you have any query about the platform or wish to contribute to the platform (blogposts or events).
Learn more about C19economics.