IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Headroom Analysis for Early Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review


  • Esther A. Boudewijns

    (Maastricht University)

  • Thomas M. Otten

    (Maastricht University)

  • Mariam Gobianidze

    (Maastricht University)

  • Bram L. Ramaekers

    (Maastricht University)

  • Onno C. P. Schayck

    (Maastricht University)

  • Manuela A. Joore

    (Maastricht University)


Objectives The headroom analysis is an early economic evaluation that quantifies the highest price at which an intervention may still be cost effective. Currently, there is no comprehensive review on how it is applied. This study investigated the application of the headroom analysis, specifically (1) how the headroom analysis is framed (2) the analytical approach and sources of evidence used, and (3) how expert judgement is used and reported. Methods A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EconLit, and Google Scholar on 28 April 2022. Studies were eligible if they reported an application of the headroom analysis. Data were presented in tabular form and summarised descriptively. Results We identified 42 relevant papers. The headroom analysis was applied to medicines (29%), diagnostic or screening tests (29%), procedures, programmes and systems (21%), medical devices (19%), and a combined test and device (2%). All studies used model-based analyses, with 40% using simple models and 60% using more comprehensive models. Thirty-three percent of the studies assumed perfect effectiveness of the health technology, while 67% adopted realistic assumptions. Ten percent of the studies calculated an effectiveness-seeking headroom instead of a cost-seeking headroom. Expert judgement was used in 71% of the studies; 23 studies (55%) used expert opinion, 6 studies (14%) used expert elicitation, and 1 study (2%) used both. Conclusions Because the application of the headroom analysis varies considerably, we recommend its appropriate use and clear reporting of analytical approaches, level of evidence available, and the use of expert judgement.

Suggested Citation

  • Esther A. Boudewijns & Thomas M. Otten & Mariam Gobianidze & Bram L. Ramaekers & Onno C. P. Schayck & Manuela A. Joore, 2023. "Headroom Analysis for Early Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 195-204, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:21:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00774-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-022-00774-5

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL:
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Maarten Ijzerman & Lotte Steuten, 2011. "Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 331-347, September.
    2. van de Wetering, Gijs & Steuten, Lotte M.G. & von Birgelen, Clemens & Adang, Eddy M.M. & IJzerman, Maarten J., 2012. "Early Bayesian modeling of a potassium lab-on-a-chip for monitoring of heart failure patients at increased risk of hyperkalaemia," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(7), pages 1268-1279.
    3. Fasterholdt, Iben & Krahn, Murray & Kidholm, Kristian & Yderstræde, Knud Bonnet & Pedersen, Kjeld Møller, 2017. "Review of early assessment models of innovative medical technologies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(8), pages 870-879.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Isabel Marques & Zélia Serrasqueiro & Fernanda Nogueira, 2021. "Managers’ Competences in Private Hospitals for Investment Decisions during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Fasterholdt, Iben & Krahn, Murray & Kidholm, Kristian & Yderstræde, Knud Bonnet & Pedersen, Kjeld Møller, 2017. "Review of early assessment models of innovative medical technologies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(8), pages 870-879.
    3. Wang, Yi & Rattanavipapong, Waranya & Teerawattananon, Yot, 2021. "Using health technology assessment to set priority, inform target product profiles, and design clinical study for health innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    4. Rowan Iskandar & Carlo Federici & Cassandra Berns & Carl Rudolf Blankart, 2022. "An approach to quantify parameter uncertainty in early assessment of novel health technologies," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(S1), pages 116-134, September.
    5. Markiewicz, Katarzyna & van Til, Janine A. & Steuten, Lotte M.G. & IJzerman, Maarten J., 2016. "Commercial viability of medical devices using Headroom and return on investment calculation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 338-346.
    6. Maarten J. IJzerman & Hendrik Koffijberg & Elisabeth Fenwick & Murray Krahn, 2017. "Emerging Use of Early Health Technology Assessment in Medical Product Development: A Scoping Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 727-740, July.
    7. Yat Hang To & Koen Degeling & Suzanne Kosmider & Rachel Wong & Margaret Lee & Catherine Dunn & Grace Gard & Azim Jalali & Vanessa Wong & Maarten IJzerman & Peter Gibbs & Jeanne Tie, 2021. "Circulating Tumour DNA as a Potential Cost-Effective Biomarker to Reduce Adjuvant Chemotherapy Overtreatment in Stage II Colorectal Cancer," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(8), pages 953-964, August.
    8. Florian Methling & Steffen A. Borden & Deepak Veeraraghavan & Insa Sommer & Johannes Ulrich Siebert & Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Mark Seidler, 2022. "Supporting Innovation in Early-Stage Pharmaceutical Development Decisions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 337-353, December.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:spr:aphecp:v:21:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00774-5. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.