Biological and operational determinants of the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation programs

2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen F. Laycock ◽  
Dominic Moran ◽  
David G. Raffaelli ◽  
Piran C. L. White

Context Comprehensive evaluation of biodiversity conservation programs is essential for informing their development as well as the design of future programs. Such evaluations should not be limited to whether targets have been met, but should also assess the cost and efficiency of meeting targets, and any factors contributing to success or failure. Aims We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of individual-species conservation programs, and the biological and operational factors affecting these. We used the species action plans (SAPs) within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan as our case study. Methods We used cost–effectiveness analysis, cost–utility analysis and threat-reduction assessment to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of individual SAPs. Then we used statistical models to investigate the relative importance of biological and operational factors affecting cost, effectiveness and efficiency. Key results Conservation plan success was affected by both biological and operational factors. Invertebrate plans tended to be less effective, whereas vertebrate plans were less efficient. Plans for widely distributed species with longer generation times tended to be less efficient. Of the three different evaluation approaches, cost-effectiveness analysis offered the best combination of ease of data collection and accuracy of data content. Conclusions The most successful SAPs concerned species with short generation times and narrow distributions. Operationally, the most successful SAPs were concise and focussed and showed clear lines of responsibility for implementation. Implications Techniques such as cost–effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis and threat reduction assessment should be used to inform decisions on maximising the rate of return on conservation investments, although broader ecological implications and socio-cultural benefits should also be considered. The success of conservation plans is influenced by both biological and operational factors. Because biological factors cannot be controlled or altered, where species exhibit characteristics that are likely to make their conservation less effective or efficient, it is critical that operational factors are optimised. High-quality data are necessary to underpin prioritisation decisions, and monitoring to deliver reliable data on both the benefits and costs of conservation should form a core component of conservation programs.

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (11) ◽  
pp. 1215-1222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
Kenneth Ramos ◽  
Brian Erstad ◽  
Marion Slack ◽  
Ali McBride ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8043-8043
Author(s):  
Mavis Obeng-Kusi ◽  
Daniel Arku ◽  
Neda Alrawashdh ◽  
Briana Choi ◽  
Nimer S. Alkhatib ◽  
...  

8043 Background: IXA, CAR, ELO and DARin combination with LEN+DEXhave been found superior in efficacy compared to LEN+DEX in the management of R/R MM. Applying indirect treatment comparisons from a network meta-analysis (NMA), this economic evaluation aimed to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of these four triplet regimens in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: In the absence of direct treatment comparison from a single clinical trial, NMA was used to indirectly estimate the comparative PFS benefit of each regimen. A 2-state Markov model simulating the health outcomes and costs was used to evaluate PFS life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) with the triplet regimens over LEN+DEX and expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) and cost-utility ratios (ICUR). Probability sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the influence of parameter uncertainty on the model. Results: The NMA revealed that DAR+LEN+DEX was superior to the other triplet therapies, which did not differ statistically amongst them. As detailed in the Table, in our cost-effectiveness analysis, all 4 triplet regimens were associated with increased PFSLY and PFSQALY gained (g) over LEN+DEX at an additional cost. DAR+LEN+DEX emerged the most cost-effective with ICER and ICUR of $667,652/PFSLYg and $813,322/PFSQALYg, respectively. The highest probability of cost-effectiveness occurred at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $1,040,000/QALYg. Conclusions: Our economic analysis shows that all the triplet regimens were more expensive than LEN +DEX only but were also more effective with respect to PFSLY and PFSQALY gained. Relative to the other regimens, the daratumumab regimen was the most cost-effective.[Table: see text]


Author(s):  
David J. Wallace ◽  
Derek C. Angus

Critical care accounts for a large and growing part of national health expenditures. Cost-effectiveness analyses are one way to identify therapies that maximize society’s return on investment. This chapter provides a broad overview of four cost study designs—cost-minimization, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility. Cost -effectiveness analysis allows the costs and benefits of different therapies to be directly compared. Within a constrained budget, cost-effectiveness analysis can identify the optimal therapies for funding. Policy informed by cost effectiveness should improve public health. The reader is introduced to the concepts of cost perspective, included costs and cost discounting. We conclude by describing policy implications of cost effectiveness evaluations and highlight their relevance to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Szucs

The economic importance of vaccines lies partly in the burden of disease that can be avoided and partly in the competition for resources between vaccines and other interventions. Decision-makers are increasingly demanding hard economic data as a basis for the allocation of limited healthcare resources. The main types of evaluation available are cost-benefit analysis (best use of allocated resources), cost-effectiveness analysis (a tool that helps policy-makers decide on the overall allocation of resources), and cost-utility analysis (quality-adjusted life year [QALY] which allows for a direct comparison of a wide range of medical interventions). The cost per QALY for a range of vaccinations can be compared in order to plan a vaccination program. Public health vaccines warrant a cost-benefit approach, in order to determine if they are worthwhile, whereas recommended vaccines might be more usefully assessed by cost-effectiveness analysis. Although cost-savings do not necessarily equate with cost-effectiveness, cost-savings are achieved in many vaccination programs.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 3-3
Author(s):  
David G. Li ◽  
Adam Faletsky ◽  
Peter Neumann ◽  
Joshua Cohen

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Costs associated with the treatment of skin diseases accounted for greater than 4% of total US healthcare spending in 2013, an increase of $46 billion (170%) since 2004. Considering the increase in novel treatments and spending, cost-utility analyses (CUAs) may provide a better understanding of costs in dermatology. In this study, we conduct a systematic overview of study quality among CUAs related to dermatology. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We queried studies from the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (www.cearegistry.org), a database supplying information on all peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis through 2014. Database methodology was previously discussed here. We queried studies using keywords from the 24 major skin disease categories (e.g., diseases relating to actinic damage were searched by using “actinic,” “actinic keratosis”). We collected data on study design, reporting methods, and analyzed relevant data stratified by 2 time-periods (1976–2008 and 2009–2014) chosen to encompass a comparable number of studies. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In total, 42 and 50 studies corresponding to the 2 time-periods were retrieved (representing 14/24 disease categories). Based on the recommended data reporting guidelines for CUAs, study quality remained largely unchanged across the 2 phases. Across the 2 time-periods, a societal perspective was used in 19% and 12% of studies, costs and (quality adjusted life-years) QALYs were discounted in 67% and 72% of studies, a correct (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) ICER was reported in 67% and 72% of studies, and a sensitivity analysis was included in 88% and 84% of studies, respectively. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Our findings suggest the quality of dermatology-related CUAs, as evaluated by recommended data reporting guidelines, to be generally stable during the analyzed time-periods. However, the quality of our results may be limited by the small number of CUAs within dermatology (10/24 disease categories did not have CUAs across any time-period). Moving forward, we encourage researchers within dermatology to pursue additional investigation towards cost-effective practices while adhering closely to recommended quality reporting guidelines for CUAs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document