IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v7y2012i02p243-261_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The evaluation of lifestyle interventions in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Rappange, David R.
  • Brouwer, Werner B. F.

Abstract

Current investments in preventive lifestyle interventions are relatively low, despite the significant impact of unhealthy behaviour on population health. This raises the question of whether the criteria used in reimbursement decisions about healthcare interventions put preventive interventions at a disadvantage. In this paper, we highlight the decision-making framework used in the Netherlands to delineate the basic benefits package. Important criteria in that framework are ‘necessity’ and ‘cost-effectiveness’. Several normative choices need to be made, and these choices can have an important impact on the evaluation of lifestyle interventions, especially when making these criteria operational and quantifiable. Moreover, the implementation of the decision-making framework may prove to be difficult for lifestyle interventions. Improvements of the decision-making framework in the Netherlands are required to guarantee sound evaluations of lifestyle interventions aimed at improving health.

Suggested Citation

  • Rappange, David R. & Brouwer, Werner B. F., 2012. "The evaluation of lifestyle interventions in the Netherlands," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 243-261, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:7:y:2012:i:02:p:243-261_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133112000023/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Reckers-Droog, V.T. & van Exel, N.J.A. & Brouwer, W.B.F., 2018. "Looking back and moving forward: On the application of proportional shortfall in healthcare priority setting in the Netherlands," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(6), pages 621-629.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:7:y:2012:i:02:p:243-261_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.