 |
 |

Parasite Screening and Treatment Among Indochinese RefugeesCost-Benefit/Utility and the General Health Policy Model
John P. Anderson, PhD;
Robert J. Moser, PhD
JAMA. 1985;253(15):2229-2235.
Abstract
The General Health Policy Model and the Quality of Well-being scale are used to describe a "cost-benefit/utility" evaluation of a screening and treatment program for intestinal parasites among Indochinese refugees in the United States. Cost-benefit/utility analysis subsumes conventional cost-effectiveness by explicitly adding social utility factors to the dollar dimension. Using actual data on parasite prevalence and program costs from one screening project and estimated figures for other factors, this article demonstrates calculation of the cost-benefit/utility outcome measure, dollars per well-year. Dollars per well-year for parasite screening are calculated for a number of examples. Further analysis and final conclusions on the worth of parasite screening and treatment programs await more reliable data for some terms of the developed model.
(JAMA 1985;253:2229-2235)
Author Affiliations
From the Department of Community and Family Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla (Dr Anderson); and the Department of Sociology, San Diego State University (Dr Moser).
Footnotes
Reprint requests to Department of Community and Family Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093 (Dr Anderson).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Evaluation of the Impact of Overseas Pre-departure Treatment for Infection with Intestinal Parasites among Montagnard Refugees Migrating from Cambodia to North Carolina
Shah et al.
Am J Trop Med Hyg 2008;78:754-759.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analyses in the Medical Literature: Are the Methods Being Used Correctly?
Udvarhelyi et al.
ANN INTERN MED 1992;116:238-244.
ABSTRACT
Comparing Health Care Options Using the Cost-Benefit Utility Ratio
Steinbach and Hardison
JAMA 1986;255:747-747.
ABSTRACT
|