In cost-effectiveness analysis, which type of outcome is used?

In cost-effectiveness analysis, which type of outcome is used?

• A. Natural units
• B. Quality-adjusted life years
• C. Cost
• D. Survival rate

Answer: (A)

In cost-effectiveness analysis, outcomes are expressed as natural units—concrete health effects like deaths averted, life-years gained, or cases prevented. This approach focuses on the actual, observable health gain from an intervention, allowing you to compute a cost per unit of effect (for example, cost per life-year gained). If you were using quality-adjusted life years, you’d be doing cost-utility analysis, which combines both quantity and quality of life into a single metric. Costs, by contrast, are not outcomes themselves; they’re the resource use that you compare against the health effects. Survival rate is a possible example of a natural health outcome, but the general principle in cost-effectiveness analysis is to measure effects in natural units rather than a single, utility-weighted metric.

In cost-effectiveness analysis, outcomes are expressed as natural units—concrete health effects like deaths averted, life-years gained, or cases prevented. This approach focuses on the actual, observable health gain from an intervention, allowing you to compute a cost per unit of effect (for example, cost per life-year gained).

If you were using quality-adjusted life years, you’d be doing cost-utility analysis, which combines both quantity and quality of life into a single metric. Costs, by contrast, are not outcomes themselves; they’re the resource use that you compare against the health effects. Survival rate is a possible example of a natural health outcome, but the general principle in cost-effectiveness analysis is to measure effects in natural units rather than a single, utility-weighted metric.