It depends on type of study. RCT would be a good choice for intervention. Now a days if you can add health impact (impact evaluation) then it would be great.

This question was delt with in WHO Programme CHOICE . (choosing Interventions that are cost-effective) See Dan Chisholm's publications in methodological aspects.

The cost-effectiveness of an intervention I believe is very important and particularly so in resource constrained settings. However other contextual issues need to be taken into account, for example, while an intervention may be cost-effective in a given setting the capacity to implement the intervention may be limited making it impractical. So to decide on the best prioritization method context is extremely important.

Thanks to all for your nice comments, in fact I believe that evaluations of cost-effectiveness interventiossn coud be a good idea, but how about interventiins that aren`t cost-effectiveness but that respond to important public health problems because they affect populations discriminated or neglected diseases, and that are not necessarily cost effective in economic terms only?

Regards

Eva, That's the idea, and I believe, especially for countries in developing, prioritizing exercises should be included in addition to the basics of burden of disease and cost effectiveness analyses, criteria of reducing inequality and attention to populations more vulnerable, which is not always reflected in only statistical or economic terms and which require other types of indicatorsusually social, which in turn are more difficult to quantify and and not always in the interest of the private sector and financial institutions.

.

Eva, I agree completely, now the big challenge is how we can convince all the actors (Stakeholders) on the need for this holistic approach, which must also be above their individual interests, i.e. that they should consider in primary form in the collective interests for the entire society. Thanks