↓ Skip to main content

An extended cost-effectiveness analysis of schizophrenia treatment in India under universal public finance

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An extended cost-effectiveness analysis of schizophrenia treatment in India under universal public finance
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12962-016-0058-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neha Raykar, Aditi Nigam, Dan Chisholm

Abstract

Schizophrenia remains a priority condition in mental health policy and service development because of its early onset, severity and consequences for affected individuals and households. This paper reports on an 'extended' cost-effectiveness analysis (ECEA) for schizophrenia treatment in India, which seeks to evaluate through a modeling approach not only the costs and health effects of intervention but also the consequences of a policy of universal public finance (UPF) on health and financial outcomes across income quintiles. Using plausible values for input parameters, we conclude that health gains from UPF are concentrated among the poorest, whereas the non-health gains in the form of out-of-pocket private expenditures averted due to UPF are concentrated among the richest income quintiles. Value of insurance is the highest for the poorest quintile and declines with income. Universal public finance can play a crucial role in ameliorating the adverse economic and social consequences of schizophrenia and its treatment in resource-constrained settings where health insurance coverage is generally poor. This paper shows the potential distributional and financial risk protection effects of treating schizophrenia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 22%
Researcher 14 19%
Other 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 16%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Psychology 6 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 7%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2017.
All research outputs
#5,397,991
of 25,271,884 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#189
of 523 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,772
of 364,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,271,884 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 523 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 364,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.