Herman Patricia M, Avery Deirdre J, Schemp Crystal S, Walsh Michele E
Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85621-0462, USA.
Eval Program Plann. 2009 Feb;32(1):55-61. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.08.008. Epub 2008 Sep 25.
Relative costs are as important as relative effectiveness when choosing between program alternatives or among a set of programs competing for scarce funds. Nevertheless, the number of cost-inclusive evaluations remains comparatively small. This article presents the results of three first-time cost-inclusive evaluations each performed by an experienced evaluator. Each evaluator performed a different type of cost-inclusive evaluation using different tobacco control programs as examples: "standard" cost-effectiveness analysis, threshold or break-even analysis, and a simulation model. Results are presented in terms of the challenges faced, and informational and insight benefits gained, as well as in terms of program cost-effectiveness. All three evaluators agreed that the benefits from performing cost-inclusive evaluations are well worth time and effort involved. They also found that this type of evaluation provides abundant information that can be used to improve program effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
在项目备选方案之间进行选择或在争夺稀缺资金的一系列项目中进行抉择时，相对成本与相对效益同样重要。然而，包含成本的评估数量仍然相对较少。本文展示了三项首次的包含成本的评估结果，每项评估均由一位经验丰富的评估者进行。每位评估者以不同的烟草控制项目为例，进行了不同类型的包含成本的评估：“标准”成本效益分析、阈值或盈亏平衡分析以及一个模拟模型。结果从所面临的挑战、获得的信息和洞察收益以及项目成本效益等方面进行了呈现。所有三位评估者都认为，进行包含成本的评估所带来的收益非常值得投入时间和精力。他们还发现，这种类型的评估提供了丰富的信息，可用于提高项目效果和成本效益。
