Standards for Economic Analyses of Interventions for the Field of Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine

• Published in: Health psychology 2019-08, Vol.38 (8), p.669-671
• Main Authors: Wilson, Dawn K, Christensen, Alan, Jacobsen, Paul B, Kaplan, Robert M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Behavior modification; Behavior Therapy; Behavioral Medicine; Cancer; Clinical standards; Cost analysis; Costs and Cost Analysis; Economics; Economists; Health behavior; Health Care Costs; Health Care Psychology; Health education; Health psychology; Health services; Health status; Human; Intervention; Nutrition; Policy making; Professional Standards; Public Health; Rehabilitation; Social research; Social sciences; Surgery; Utility functions; Variability
• ISSN: 0278-6133; 1930-7810
• DOI: 10.1037/hea0000770

Behavioral interventions can be offered within a wide range of contexts, including public health, medicine, surgery, physical rehabilitation, nutrition, and other health services. These differing services compete for the same resources and it is difficult to compare their value. Systematic standardized methodologies for valuing outcomes are available and are being applied by economists and health services researchers, but are not widely used in our field. With support from the Society for Health Psychology, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the Office for Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) at the National Institutes of Health, two working group meetings were held to consider the use of well-established cost-effectiveness methodologies for the evaluation of behavioral and public health interventions. In this special section, we acknowledge a wide range of variability in terms of behavioral interventions typically delivered in nonclinical versus more traditional clinical settings. Three articles address (1) standardizing methods for conducting cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses, (2) providing examples to illustrate progress in applying these methods to evaluate interventions delivered in whole or in part in clinical settings, and (3) providing nonclinical intervention examples selected to highlight the challenges and opportunities for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of interventions in more diverse settings. The ability of our field to communicate cost-effectiveness data to policy makers, employers, and insurers that incorporates implementation costs is central to the likelihood of our interventions being adopted by practitioners and reimbursed by payers.