A cost consequence analysis is a variation of the cost effectiveness approach that provides costs and outcomes (consequences) in disaggregated form, and thus is more transparent than, e.g. an analysis reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year.
56 Currently, there is no consensus over the appropriate method to incorporate individual patient preference for a particular treatment that is not reflected in decisions made at the population level within the standard cost effectiveness approach.
In addition, biological reasons, i.e. the preservation of the integrity of the teeth bordering the edentulous area, and economical reasons, i.e. the cost-effectiveness approach showing that implant therapy could be more cost-effective than traditional dental bridge therapy [11], [12], may be advocated.
In our study we compared the diagnostic work-up by CTA, MRA and DSA based on a cost-effectiveness approach.
Consequently, rehabilitation facilities use a cost-effectiveness approach when they assess rehabilitation potential and are inclined to choose candidates who are most likely to meet the objectives of their rehabilitation in a limited time, and who are most likely to be able to return home rather than be relocated into a nursing home.
Had there been more homogeneity in the delivery components and target groups for the interventions, so that we could take the more usual cost-effectiveness approach of pooling interventions of the same type and evaluating cost-effectiveness from the pooled intervention effect and modal intervention cost, none of the interventions for promoting fruits and vegetables would be cost-effective.
This is not in accordance with WHO's generalised cost-effectiveness approach where interventions are compared to a null scenario [ 55].
The clear advantage of the generalised cost-effectiveness approach is that it can be presented in a way that can be translated across different settings [ 56].
The cost-effectiveness approach will assess value for money in terms of cost per fall averted, and the cost-utility analysis will assess cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained.
On the whole, the comparison of ICERs (cost per QALY) made the low-dose ITI protocol the most cost-effectiveness approach in a lifetime perspective, followed by the Malmö and then by the Bonn protocol.
Recent applications of stated-preference techniques are concerned with complementing an intervention's cost-effectiveness values with information on how patients might value that care or providing an alternative to traditional cost-effectiveness approach [ 15, 16, 23, 34].
