IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v32y2009i1p55-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are cost-inclusive evaluations worth the effort?

Author

Listed:
  • Herman, Patricia M.
  • Avery, Deirdre J.
  • Schemp, Crystal S.
  • Walsh, Michele E.

Abstract

Relative costs are as important as relative effectiveness when choosing between program alternatives or among a set of programs competing for scarce funds. Nevertheless, the number of cost-inclusive evaluations remains comparatively small. This article presents the results of three first-time cost-inclusive evaluations each performed by an experienced evaluator. Each evaluator performed a different type of cost-inclusive evaluation using different tobacco control programs as examples: "standard" cost-effectiveness analysis, threshold or break-even analysis, and a simulation model. Results are presented in terms of the challenges faced, and informational and insight benefits gained, as well as in terms of program cost-effectiveness. All three evaluators agreed that the benefits from performing cost-inclusive evaluations are well worth time and effort involved. They also found that this type of evaluation provides abundant information that can be used to improve program effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Herman, Patricia M. & Avery, Deirdre J. & Schemp, Crystal S. & Walsh, Michele E., 2009. "Are cost-inclusive evaluations worth the effort?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 55-61, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:32:y:2009:i:1:p:55-61
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(08)00070-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. E. T. Ronckers & W. Groot & A.J.H.A. Ament, 2005. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Smoking Cessation: Standardizing the Cost-Effectiveness," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 25(4), pages 437-448, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peterson, Christina & Skolits, Gary, 2020. "Value for money: A utilization-focused approach to extending the foundation and contribution of economic evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. Yates, Brian T., 2021. "Toward collaborative cost-inclusive evaluation: Adaptations and transformations for evaluators and economists," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    3. Persaud, Nadini, 2021. "Expanding the repertoire of evaluation tools so that evaluation recommendations can assist nonprofits to enhance strategic planning and design of program operations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. Yates, Brian T. & Marra, Mita, 2017. "Social Return On Investment (SROI): Problems, solutions … and is SROI a good investment?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 136-144.
    5. King, Julian, 2021. "Expanding theory-based evaluation: Incorporating value creation in a theory of change," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sanjib Saha & Ulf-G Gerdtham & Pia Johansson, 2010. "Economic Evaluation of Lifestyle Interventions for Preventing Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-46, August.
    2. Kristian Bolin, 2012. "Economic Evaluation of Smoking-Cessation Therapies," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 30(7), pages 551-564, July.
    3. van Baal, Pieter H.M. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Hoogenveen, Rudolf T. & Feenstra, Talitha L., 2007. "Increasing tobacco taxes: A cheap tool to increase public health," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 142-152, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:32:y:2009:i:1:p:55-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.