Determination of a cost-effectiveness threshold for cancer interventions in Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives: The estimation of a cost- Effectiveness (CE) threshold from the perspective of those who have experienced a life-threatening disease can provide empirical evidence for health policy makers to make the best allocation decisions on limited resources. The aim of the current study was to empirically determine the CE threshold for cancer interventions from the perspective of cancer patients in Iran. Methods: A composite time trade-off (cTTO) task for deriving quality adjusted life-year (QALY) and a double-bounded dichotomous choice (DBDC) approach followed by open-ended question for examining patients' willingness-to-pay were performed. A nationally representative sample of 580 cancer patients was recruited from the largest governmental cancer centers in Iran between June 2021 and January 2022, and data were gathered using face-to-face interviews. The CE threshold was calculated using the nonparametric Turnbull model and parametric interval-censored Weibull regression model. Furthermore, the factors that affect the CE threshold were determined using the parametric model. Results: The estimated CE threshold using the nonparametric Turnbull model and parametric interval-censored Weibull regression model was IRR 440,410,000 (USD 10,485.95) and IRR 595,280,000 (USD 14,173.33) per QALY, respectively. Gender, age, education, income, type of cancer, and current treatment status were significantly associated with the estimated CE threshold. Conclusions: The value of parametric model-based threshold in this study was 1.98 times the Iranian GDP per capita, which was lower than the CE threshold value recommended by the WHO (i.e., 3 times the GDP per capita) for low-and middle-income countries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".