low cost effectiveness

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "low cost effectiveness" is not correct in standard English usage.
It seems to be a conflation of "low cost" and "cost effectiveness," which are separate concepts. Example: "The project was praised for its cost effectiveness, but the low cost effectiveness of the materials used raised concerns."

⚠ May contain grammatical issues

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

9 human-written examples

For the low cost, effectiveness, and fewer side effects, the popularity of using traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) to handle hyperlipidemia is increasing and its role in health care has been recognized by the public at large.

BioMed Research International

Low cost effectiveness and limited recognition of the potential benefits to be gained from the CRFs were so far the main reasons for their limited consumption.

Advances in Agronomy

Pulsating heat pipes (PHPs) are among the best solutions for the electronics cooling due to their low cost, effectiveness and being passive.

Applied Thermal Engineering

Application of such complex strategies in clinical setting would be associated with a significant risk and low cost effectiveness.

Plosone

Finally, the low cost effectiveness is a limitation of CBT, which many mental health institutions experience as a barrier to treatment delivery.

BMC Psychiatry

It is not the case that all community and public health interventions have extremely low cost effectiveness ratios; neither is it true that high complexity interventions are universally expensive in relation to the health gains they provide.

British Medical Journal

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

51 human-written examples

While combined therapy did not have the lowest cost effectiveness ratio, it was significantly more effective in both outcome measures than any alternative.

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Even within the community and public health interventions, however, there was more than a 200-fold difference between the highest and lowest cost effectiveness ratios.

British Medical Journal

Due to this combined effect, this strategy could save approximately 3100 life years per 10,000 population, which was the highest number of life years saved, and cost approximately $2,800 per LYS, which was the lowest cost effectiveness ratio among the modelled interventions (see Tables  2 and 4).

BMC Infectious Diseases

Besides homeopathy, the plans highlight 17 other items that will no longer be available on prescription for reasons ranging from low clinical effectiveness to low cost-effectiveness.

The Guardian - Lifestyle

Instead they will expand their tiered formularies so that patients who want very expensive products of low cost-effectiveness will pay a large part, but not all, of the cost.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When discussing both cost and effectiveness, clearly separate the two concepts or use established terms like "cost efficiency" or "affordable effectiveness" to avoid confusion and grammatical errors.

Common error

Avoid using "low cost effectiveness" as it's grammatically incorrect and can be misinterpreted. Instead, specify whether you mean something is "cost-efficient" (achieving good results at a reasonable cost) or "affordable and effective" (both inexpensive and successful).

Linguistic Context

The phrase "low cost effectiveness" functions as a noun phrase intended to describe the relationship between the expense and the efficacy of something. However, Ludwig AI indicates it's not standard English and conflates the concepts of "low cost" and "cost effectiveness."

Expression frequency: Uncommon

Frequent in

Science

58%

News & Media

21%

Academia

8%

Less common in

Formal & Business

4%

Encyclopedias

4%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "low cost effectiveness" presents a challenge due to its grammatical incorrectness and potential for misinterpretation. Ludwig AI identifies it as a non-standard English construction. While it appears in some scientific and news contexts, it's advisable to use clearer and more grammatically sound alternatives like "cost efficiency" or "affordable effectiveness". These alternatives more accurately and effectively convey the intended meaning, which revolves around assessing the value and results obtained in relation to the expenses incurred. In formal writing, prioritizing precision and grammatical correctness is essential for clear communication.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

affordable effectiveness

Combines the idea of low cost with the notion of being effective, correcting the grammatical issue.

cost efficiency

Focuses on minimizing expenses for a given level of output, omitting direct reference to effectiveness.

low-priced efficiency

Directly combines low cost with efficient results.

economic effectiveness

Highlights the financial aspect of effectiveness, implying good value for money.

budget-friendly efficacy

Highlights efficacy within a limited budget.

high value for money

Emphasizes the balance between the price paid and the benefits received.

cost-justified results

Stresses that the outcomes are worth the investment made.

economical performance

Indicates good performance at a reasonable price.

good return on investment

Emphasizes financial gains relative to the initial expenditure.

efficient use of resources

Focuses on how well resources are used to achieve a certain level of effectiveness.

FAQs

What does "low cost effectiveness" mean?

The phrase "low cost effectiveness" isn't standard English. It seems to combine "low cost" and "cost effectiveness." Typically, one would describe something as either having "low cost" or being "cost effective".

How can I rephrase "low cost effectiveness" to be grammatically correct?

Instead of "low cost effectiveness", consider using phrases like "cost efficiency", "affordable effectiveness", or "high value for money" to convey a similar meaning more clearly.

Is "low cost effectiveness" the same as "not cost effective"?

Not exactly. "Low cost effectiveness" is grammatically questionable, whereas "not cost effective" is a clear statement that the benefits don't justify the expenses. It's better to say something is "not cost effective" if that's what you mean.

In what situations might I be tempted to use "low cost effectiveness" and what should I say instead?

You might use "low cost effectiveness" when you want to imply that something is cheap but not particularly effective. Instead, consider saying it's "inexpensive but not very effective" or that it has "limited cost efficiency".