Cost-Effectiveness of Integrative Oncology Interventions: A Systematic Review

Ten studies from Europe, Australia, Asia, and the United States were synthesized in this systematic review. The analysis, registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251019386), found integrative oncology interventions were either dominant or cost-effective within national willingness-to-pay thresholds. The review was authored by Friedemann Schad and published on figshare in March 2026.

Use Cases

• Benchmarking cost-effectiveness of psychological cancer programmes based on the review's findings.
• Informing health policy for traditional and complementary medicine based on the WHO 2025–2034 strategy context.
• Prioritizing research on phytotherapeutic and mind–body interventions based on their reported favourable cost-effectiveness profiles.
• Assessing methodological quality of economic evaluations in oncology using the reported mean CHEERS score of 93%.

Strengths

• Includes 10 peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness studies identified from five major databases.
• Reports a high mean methodological quality score of 93% based on the CHEERS checklist.
• Covers a range of intervention types including psychological, phytotherapeutic, rehabilitative, and mind–body programmes.

Limitations

• Row count is unknown, which may limit suitability assessment.
• Column-level documentation is absent; field semantics must be inferred after download.
• The review notes few included studies addressed long-term outcomes, structural uncertainty, or equity impacts.

Provenance

Source

Systematic review conducted by author Friedemann Schad, published on figshare.

Collection Method

Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EconLit, and CINAHL for peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness analyses.

Time Range

Studies included up to the date of the review's search; specific range not provided.

Freshness

Last updated 2026-03-18 06:57:34; freshness should be verified.

Geography

Studies from Europe, Australia, Asia, and the United States.