Introduction

Economic evaluation in health is a tool used by planners to select an option that offers more advantages based on cost and results presented by intervention, programme or policy. Actions, costs, and consequences are analyzed assisting and contributing to the policy-decision process, providing information to new interventions and health technologies, enabling a resource projection to expand the benefits to a wider population [1]. The need for greater resources allocation in public health programmes, combined with the growing technological sophistication, increased the popularity of economic evaluations. According to Moodie, et al. [2] this popularity was due to the need to prove the efficiency of health programmes, providing information to policy makers when allocating resources for intervention proposals. However, economic evaluation should be conducted and reported accurately to contribute in the definition and value measurements of public health interventions. With the increasing number of publications about economic evaluation in health interventions, the monitoring related to the quality of such assessments became needed. The availability of data obtained from these evaluations has been limited, mostly due to the use of methods that have not been developed for economic analysis in health. Rigorous, high-quality assessments of economic evaluation should become usual, demonstrating conclusively the benefits and merits achieved by public health interventions, and inform the government and community if the investments resulted in any benefit. Among the interventions that need consistent evaluation, there is the School Health Programme. This type of programme consists of an important strategy to enhance learning and the health of children, adolescents and school community. The difficulty in estimating benefits is a challenge for the programmes and to the decision makers, as well as the management of the various funds mainly received from the health and education sectors. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perform a mapping review identifying published articles about the economic evaluation of school health programmes in the past decade, discuss how these studies were conducted and identifying gaps in the literature for further revisions or research to be planned [1-4].

 Methods

 A mapping review was carried out in August 2015. We screened the electronic database PubMed/Medline for studies published between August 6th, 2005 and August 3rd, 2015. Keyword and MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) searches were conducted to assess studies that performed an economic evaluation of school health programs. The search strategy included the terms "cost", "economic evaluation", "school health services", "school health", "school health promotion" and school health program. The language was restricted to English, Spanish and Portuguese. The articles selection and analyzes were conducted independently by two reviewers. The first selection was conducted by reading the title and abstract. Articles addressing economic evaluation of school health programmes and carried them out were included and studies that did not perform the economic evaluation and did not approach the topic of interest were excluded (Figure 1). Once the studies were selected for final analysis, the following data of each study was extracted: authors, the country where it was performed, intervention identification, type of economic evaluation used and the results through cost and effects measurement adopted (Chart 1).

Results

 A flowchart describing the selection process is presented in Figure 1. Initially, 377 citations were identified from the past ten years. Thirty-five studies were qualified for the final review analysis.

Figure 1: Flowchart of selection process, 2015.

The studies were performed in United States (57.15%), followed by United Kingdom (8.58%), Australia (8.58%), Spain (5.72%), Canada (5.72%), European countries combined (2.85%), Netherlands (2.85%), Sweden (2.85%), New Zealand (2.85%) and India (2.85%). The type of economic evaluation used by the studies were cost-effectiveness (51.42%), cost-benefit (17.15%), costs (14.28%), two types of economic analyzes combined (14.28%) and cost-consequence (2.85%). The authors, country, type of school health program, and economic evaluation used and the results through cost and effects measurement adopted are shown in Chart 1.

 Chart 1: Selected studies on economic evaluation of school health programmes, 2015

The narrative synthesis gathered the selected studies in nine groups:  (1) physical activity, healthy diet and obesity prevention; (2) reducing tobacco use among adolescents; (3) sex education, early pregnancy prevention and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs); (4) mental health and violence reduction; (5) preventive and clinical activities related to dental caries; (6) prevention of childhood asthma; (7) activities in school-based health centers; (8) partnerships for child health; (9) other studies represented by a single study of each theme such as: children immunization against influenza in schools, excessive sun exposure protection program and gardening and cooking.

Discussion

The present mapping review was performed to analyse articles published on economic evaluation of school health programmes. The School Health Programmes can provide one of the most effective means available for improving the health. The cost-effectiveness was the type of economic evaluation most used between the studies analyzed. Phillips, et al. [3] discussed the feasibility and validity of economic valuation techniques to develop priorities in public health programmes. Health promoters and economists use different analyses principles, different methodologies, and this can lead to an adjustment failure between the data provided and the economic evaluation requirements. From the selected studies, twelve were related to physical activity, healthy diet and preventing obesity programmes. Studies support the benefits of childhood obesity prevention programmes through school interventions, affirming the high potential of prevention of the overweight in childhood. Eight studies described not only the complete methodology of the intervention programme but also, how the economic evaluation was performed.

Partnerships and involvement of the local community, as well as analysis of the context in which the program will be developed, results in greater impact and sustainability in relation to reducing costs and achieving positive changes in the community, children and their families. Interventions performed during regular school hours and those carried out through the extension of the school day with compulsory participation are more feasible in relation to reach and costs per student than pre and post school interventions.  It is important to establish a method of cost-effectiveness analysis, which results in economic estimates, so that the proposed intervention is worth the money spent [2,4-15]. The approaches used should ensure that economic assessments can be compared for the purpose of deciding on the allocation of resources and products. The harmful effects of smoking are well known in the literature. Four studies were related to tobacco, which is responsible for thousands of deaths each year in the world, and a current international action to control its use exists. In recent years, tobacco prevention at school age and in schools programmes are widely adopted and have shown to be effective in reducing consumption and early progression.

All economic evaluation studies presented intervention programmes relatively low-priced to implement and with high gains to the tobacco user health. Prevention programmes of sexual and reproductive health are necessary among adolescents and young adults. The school age mother has strong tendency not to finish her studies, and the babies are more likely to be born with low weight and/or premature. Also, the prevention programmes for Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) in schools are essential to establish safe sexual behavior before an unsafe occur, improving knowledge and atitudes [15-22]. The study by Key, et al. [20] behind the inclusion of social assistance services in school associated with integral health care for adolescent mothers and their children as an effective intervention in reducing early pregnancy. In the Terris-Prestholt, et al. [21] study an economist conducted the data collection, and a timeline was created to allocate the cost per component.  The study by Ateka, et al. [22] revealed generous differences regarding the degree of benefits, i.e., the STD prevention program in schools, was more cost-effective for the feminine sex. The behavior issues among children, and young adults create personal and social problems related to criminal activity, illegal substance usage, early sexual initiation and sexually transmitted diseases [23].

Chart 1: Selected studies on economic evaluation of school health programmes, 2015.

Kuo, et al. [24] evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a school-based mental health triage programme, to identify children in need of specific interventions. Cost effectiveness was calculated by assessing overall costs per successful screening link. However, the costs associated with increasing the use of services and long-term effectiveness was not included. Foster, et al. [23] analyzed the cost-effectiveness of an intensive intervention programme with multiple components for the prevention of aggressiveness in young children, with early identification and treatment. The study estimated costs for overheads, and the program has proven to be cost-effective mainly for untreated and higher-risk populations, which are particularly costly to society. The studies that evaluated programmes of preventive and clinical activities related to dental caries were conceptual and exploratory. Bailit, et al. [25] used national and international data to estimate expected revenues and expenses for the school-based programme operation in different states, aiming to reduce the disparities in access to dental care, examining their financial viability related to refund rates of a health plan. Scherrer, et al. [26] evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the School-Based Sealant Programmes (SBSP) in which different sizes of programmes were modeled with various restrictions over the practice to compare its efficiency. Bertrand, et al. [27] simulated a public funding programme of dental sealants in both the public and private sectors and compared these hypothetical situations. Skold, et al. [28] analyzed two studies on a prevention program using fluoride varnishes and a prevention program using fluoride mouthwash and combine the results with a longitudinal study of caries development in a normal dental care setting in schools.

Asthma is one of the most common chronic childhood diseases causing morbidity symptoms, impact on quality of life, limitations of physical activities, no attendance in schools and loss of working days by the caregivers of the children with the disease. The studies on prevention programmes for childhood asthma had different methodologies. Noyes, et al. [29] examined the cost-effectiveness of the School-Based Asthma Therapy (SBAT) programme in comparison to the usual care, and the administration of preventive medication was performed. Tai and Bame [30] examined the cost-effectiveness of a prevention programme for childhood asthma based on clinical care at schools, using eight public databases to calculate the costs of the implementation and the potential savings in reducing the acute emergency and ambulatory. Atherly, et al. [31] discussed an educational intervention programme on asthma, designed to be adopted and implemented in the school environment. All these authors considered that other studies are necessary to justify if these programmes results in benefits to compensate the additional expenditure, suggested that these programmes are profitable from a social perspective, i.e., by measuring all costs and results incurred for society.

The School-Based Health Center-SBHC provide essential primary care for students within the schools. Due to its location, they allow overcoming barrier access such as transportation, lack of service providers, insurance coverage and parents working schedules and commitment [32]. Schlitt, et al. [33] explored the current status of the role of SBHCs, the evolution, and expected impact on long-term sustainability. Guo, et al. [32] analyzed the cost-effectiveness of SBHCs having as a primary outcome the health care total cost per student. The authors considered SBHCs cost beneficial to both health system and society, and should be seen as a health service delivery model to help address the disparities in health access. There is evidence in the literature related to the success in achieving partnerships aimed at improving the wellbeing of children and the adequacy of investments. This partnership can be performed in different ways between schools and universities, schools and community, schools and executives, among others [9,34-36]. Crowley, et al. [36] described the financial and economic cost to install the Promotion School Community University Partnerships to Enhance Resilience (PROSPER) and reported that costs vary over time depending on the priority of certain activities, and the definition of what is essential and necessary to the successful programme implementation.

One study presented a successful partnership programme through the involvement of the community in a gardening and cooking programme, with positive multiplier impact and return of the initial investment [35]. Evaluating multiplier impacts from investment on related community activity over time are suggested as significant evidence of program health effects on targeted groups of individuals in assessing community network engagement and ownership, dynamic impacts, and program long term success and return on investment [35]. Different studies performed economic evaluations in diverse themes. Schmier, et al. [37] performed a cost-consequence analysis of immunization against influenza in schools using data from a controlled clinical trial. The results showed that immunization reduces disease among children and adults and is cost saving to society. Kyle, et al. [38] evaluated a programme that teaches children how to protect themselves from excessive sun exposure. They affirm that it is worth educating children on the subject and that the programme is cost-effective and cost-benefit with modest impacts on behavior but with a significant reduction in incidence and mortality from skin cancer. Interventions with early childhood programmes provide evidence as the most cost-beneficial. Many studies reported that the programmes total cost were used for evaluation, but did not specify which were included and excluded, and how they were measured. Most of the studies mention costs related to the material used and time spent, and only a few describe administrative expenses and include costs related to the research construction and technical assistance. Some included costs related to volunteer time and donated resources, social costs, and opportunity losses. There were a great variety of research methods used such as interviews, questionnaires, telephone calls, secondary data analyses, estimates, epidemiological modeling using mathematical models (DALY and QALY), among others, to determine whether the programmes could be considered cost effective compared to existing alternatives [39].

The authors of this review found, in the included studies distributed worldwide, the same evidences in the study of Aratani, et al. [40] who discuss about evidence of the effectiveness of health promotion programmes for adolescents regarding behavioral changes and improvements in health outcomes, as well as assessing the costs and benefits of these programmes in the United States. The article focuses on the discussion of high quality programmes in the reproductive health area; obesity prevention; mental health and the use of substances including the tobacco; and prevention of unintentional injuries (accidents) and violence. It mentions the main studies identified in the literature that address evidence on avoidable costs of health problems in adolescents and the cost-effectiveness of the health promotion programmes and policies. The programmes discussed in the article were not developed exclusively in the school; they were also developed in communities and clinics, presenting effective results regarding changes in health risk behaviors and in the development of healthy habits. Regarding the cost-effectiveness issue, the programmes are generally likely to be highly cost-effective, however, programmes have many cost variations, are heterogeneous in its purposes, study design, scenario composition, making difficult to perform a synthesis by hard evidence.

The authors stated that there are efforts to evaluate these programmes in recent years even considering the challenges related to the difficulty and cost related to these assessments due to the large sample size, the need for sophisticated methodologies to isolate the effect of the intervention and the long-term follow-up. They also affirmed that there is a strong justification for increasing investments in health promotion for children and adolescents in the reproductive health areas, obesity prevention, mental health and substance use, trauma and violence, resulting in a significant decrease in morbidities in these areas. A few studies, in this mapping review, describe sensitivity analysis due to estimates analyses for costs and discount rates. According to Contandriopoulos, et al. [15] two important points that should be addressed in the economic evaluation studies are the update of costs and effects of the programme from time to time and the sensitivity analysis. They are essential to measure the uncertainty impact on the results obtained, certifying its strength and testing its external validity. Guidelines to evaluate the quality of the economic evaluations studies have been published in the literature, to standardize a methodology that could facilitate comparison between the studies.

The published studies used different approaches to performing economic evaluations, which made the results difficult to compare. However, the use of these guidelines are not simple and requires an expert methodological and technical knowledge. The authors Caffray and Chatterji [41] described the development and testing of an effective and practical Internet-based cost survey designed by the authors of the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care (NASBHC) to capture the costs of school based-health programmes. The economic evaluation can be conducted from several points of view, whether is the target population, investor or society. This perspective will determine which costs should be considered to achieve the result [15]. The study showed that several forms were used in the estimation and decision of which cost should be included in calculations (direct, indirect, fixed, variable), with a lack of clarity about which perspective in the evaluation was performed. Although a high heterogeneity was presented in the selected studies, they still can contribute with the economic evaluation knowledge in school health programmes. There is an issue related to the selection method to perform an economic evaluation of health since it is not a property or a service, but a condition. Some health problems affect other people than those directly affected and, there is uncertainty about the occurrence of diseases. All these factors lead to uncertainties of the complicated solution, concerning to the resource amount that should be allocated to health, which services should be prioritized and financed, and who would be the beneficiaries [15]. It is necessary for an economic evaluation of credibility to precise definition and description, within a methodological accuracy that sustain their results. When executed with quality, they can help decision makers to choose programmes that save resources and future costs, also provide a projection of possible benefits.

 Conclusion

The selected studies in this mapping review showed different methods, presentation of included and excluded costs and consequences. Some studies did not contain an explicit identification of the intervention, perspectives used for the analyzes, appropriate discounts for programmes that were meant for future periods, sensitivity analysis, incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, and also presented generalized results. This study was limited to present a synthesis of knowledge and relevant aspects to be considered in the economic evaluation of school health programmes since there are significant variations in conducting such evaluation. There is evidence that school health programmes can bring benefits to the target population and society.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

 Ethical Approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Funding: This research was supported by CAPES Foundation, Ministry of Education of Brazil, Brasilia- DF, 70.040-020, Brazil (BEX:10349/14-6); CNPq and FAPEMIG.

Conflicts of interest: none

 References

1.   Morgan M, Mariño R, Wright C, Bailey D and Hopcraft M. Economic evaluation of preventive dental programmes: what can they tell us? (2012) Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2: 117-121.     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2012.00730.x

2.    Moodie ML, Herbert JK, de Silva-Sanigorski AM, Mavoa HM, Keating CL, et al. The cost-effectiveness of a successful community-based obesity prevention program: The be active eat well program (2013) Obesity 21: 2072-2080.

https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.20472

3.     Phillips CJ, Fordham R, Marsh K, Bertranou E, Davies S, et al. Exploring the role of economics in prioritization in public health: what do stakeholders think? (2011) Eur J Public Health 21: 578-584.    https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckq121

4.     Ohinmaa A, Langille JL, Jamieson S, Whitby C and Veugelers PJ. Costs of implementing and maintaining comprehensive school health: the case of the Annapolis Valley Health Promoting Schools program (2011) Can J Public Health 102: 451-454.

5.    Pil L, Putman K, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Manios Y, et al. Establishing a method to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a kindergarten-based, family-involved intervention to prevent obesity in early childhood. The ToyBox-study (2014) Obes Rev 3: 81-89.        https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12179

6.      Rush E, Obolonkin V, McLennan S, Graham D, Harris JD, et al.  Lifetime cost effectiveness of a through-school nutrition and physical programme: Project Energize (2014) Obes Res Clin Pract 8: 115-122.       https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orcp.2013.03.005

7.      Gesell SB, Sommer EC, Lambert EW, Vides de Andrade AR, Whitaker L, et al. Comparative effectiveness of after-school programmes to increase physical activity (2013) J Obes.       https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/576821

8.      Moya MP, Sánchez LM, López BJ, Escribano SF, Notario PB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of an intervention to reduce overweight and obesity in 9-10-year-olds. The Cuenca study (2011) Gac Sanit 25: 198-204.       https://doi.org/10.1590/S0213-91112011000300005    

9.      Beets MW, Tilley F, Turner-McGrievy  G, Weaver RG and Jones S. Community partnership to address snack quality and cost in after-school programmes (2014) J Sch Health 84: 543-548.      https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12175

10.    Moodie ML, Carter RC, Swinburn BA and Haby MM. The cost-effectiveness of Australia's active after-School Communities program (2010) Obesity 18: 1585-1592.       https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12175

11.    Gelli A, Al-Shaiba N and Espejo F. The costs and cost-efficiency of providing food through schools in areas of high food insecurity (2009) Food Nutr Bull 3: 68-76.       https://doi.org/10.1177/156482650903000107

12.    Reznik M, Wylie-Rosett J, Kim M and Ozuah PO. A classroom-based physical activity intervention for urban kindergarten and first-grade students: a feasibility study (2015) Child Obes 11: 314-324.    https://doi.org/10.1089/chi.2014.0090

13.    Sharma S, Helfman L, Albus K and Pomeroy M, Chuang RJ, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of brighter bites: A food Co-Op in Schools to increase access, continuity and education of fruits and vegetables among low-income populations (2015) J Prim Prev 36: 281-286.        https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-015-0395-2

14.    Babey SH, Wu S and Cohen D. How can schools help youth increase physical activity? An economic analysis comparing school-based programs (2014) Prev Med 69: 55-60.       https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.10.013

15.    Contandriopoulos AP, Lachaine J and Brousselle A. Economic evaluation (2011) Brouselle A, Champagne F, Contandriopoulos AP, Hartz Z, et al. Rio de Janeiro Fiocruz 9: 183-216.

16.    Hollingworth W, Cohen D, Hawkins J, Hughes RA, Moore LA, et al. Reducing smoking in adolescents: cost-effectiveness results from the cluster randomized ASSIST (A Stop Smoking In Schools Trial) (2012) Nicotine Tob Res 14: 161-168.

 https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntr155

17.    Brown HS, Stigler M, Perry C, Dhavan P, Arora M, et al. The cost-effectiveness of a school-based smoking prevention program in India (2013) Health Promot Int 28: 178-186.       https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dar095

18.   Vijgen SM, van Baal PH, Hoogenveen RT, de Wit GA and Feenstra TL. Cost-effectiveness analyses of health promotion programmes: a case study of smoking prevention and cessation among Dutch students (2008) Health Educ Res 23: 310-318.

 https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cym024

19.    Hormigo AJ, García-Altés A, López MJ, Bartoll X, Nebot M, et al. Cost-benefit analysis of a school-based smoking prevention program (2009) Gac Sanit 23: 311-314.      https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2009.01.013

20.    Key JD, Gebregziabher MG, Marsh LD and O'Rourke KM. Effectiveness of an intensive, school-based intervention for teen mothers (2008) J Adolesc Health 42: 394-400.        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.027  

21.   Terris-Prestholt F, Kumaranayake L, Obasi AI, Cleophas-Mazige B, Makokha M, et al. From trial intervention to scale-up: costs of an adolescent sexual health program in Mwanza, Tanzania (2006) Sex Transm Dis 10: 133-139.

 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.olq.0000200606.98181.42

22.   Ateka GK and Lairson DR. School-based HIV/STD prevention programmes: do benefits justify costs? (2008) J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care 7: 46-51.     https://doi.org/10.1177/1545109707304446

23.    Foster EM and Jones D. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Can a costly intervention be cost-effective? An analysis of violence prevention (2006) Arch Gen Psychiatry 63: 1284-1291.    https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.63.11.1284 

24.    Kuo E, Vander SA, McCauley E and Kernic MA. Cost-effectiveness of a school-based emotional health screening program (2009) J Sch Health 79: 277-285.      https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00410.x

25.    Bailit H, Beazoglou T and Drozdowski M. Financial feasibility of a model school-based dental program in different states (2008) Public Health Rep 123: 761-767.      https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490812300612

26.    Scherrer CR, Griffin PM and Swann JL. Public health sealant delivery programmes: optimal delivery and the cost of practice acts (2007) Med Decis Making 27: 762-771.     https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07302134

27.    Bertrand E, Mallis M, Bui NM and Reinharz D. Cost-effectiveness simulation of a universal publicly funded sealants application program (2011) J Public Health Dent 71: 38-45.     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2010.00200.x

28.    Sköld UM, Petersson LG, Birkhed D and Norlund A. Cost-analysis of school-based fluoride varnish and fluoride rinsing programs (2008) Acta Odontol Scand 66: 286-292.       https://doi.org/10.1080/00016350802293978

29.   Noyes K, Bajorska A, Fisher S, Sauer J, Fagnano M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the School-Based Asthma Therapy (SBAT) program (2013) Pediatrics 131: 709-717.        https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1883

30.    Tai T and Bame SI. Cost-benefit analysis of childhood asthma management through school-based clinic programmes (2011) J Community Health 36: 253-260.      https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-010-9305-y

31.    Atherly A, Nurmagambetov T, Williams S and Griffith M. An economic evaluation of the school-based "power breathing" asthma program (2009) J Asthma 46: 596-599.       https://doi.org/10.1080/02770900903006257

32.    Guo JJ, Wade TJ, Pan W and Keller KN. School-based health centers: cost-benefit analysis and impact on health care disparities (2010) Am J Public Health 100: 1617-1623.      https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.185181

33.    Schlitt JJ, Juszczak LJ and Eichner NH. Current status of state policies that support school-based health centers (2008) Public Health Rep 123: 731-738.      https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490812300609

34.    Jayaratne K, Kelaher M and Dunt D. Child Health Partnerships: a review of program characteristics, outcomes and their relationship (2010) BMC Health Serv Res 10: 172.      https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-172

35.    Eckermann S, Dawber J, Yeatman H, Quinsey K and Morris D. Evaluating return on investment in a school based health promotion and prevention program: the investment multiplier for the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden National Program (2014) Soc Sci Med 114: 103-112.      https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.056

36.    Crowley DM, Jones DE, Greenberg MT, Feinberg ME and Spoth RL. Resource consumption of a diffusion model for prevention programmes: the PROSPER delivery system (2012) J Adolesc Health 50: 256-263.         https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.07.001

37.    Schmier J, Li S, King JC, Nichol K and Mahadevia PJ. Benefits and costs of immunizing children against influenza at school: an economic analysis based on a large-cluster controlled clinical trial (2008) Health Aff (Millwood) 27: 96-104.

 https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.27.2.w96

38.    Kyle JW, Hammitt JK, Lim HW, Geller AC, Hall-Jordan LH, et al. Economic evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency's SunWise program: sun protection education for young children (2008)  Pediatrics 121: e1074-1084.

 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-1400

39.    Reynolds AJ, Temple JA, White BA, Ou SR and Robertson DL. Age 26 cost-benefit analysis of the child-parent center early education program (2011) Child Dev 82: 379-404.       https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01563.x

40.    Aratani Y, Schwarz SW and Skinner C. The economic impact of adolescent health promotion policies and programs (2011) Adolesc Me State Art Rev 22: 367-386.

41.    Caffray CM and Chatterji P. Developing an Internet-based survey to collect program cost data (2009) Eval Program Plann 32: 62-73.      https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.08.009

 ^*Corresponding author

 Citation

 Oliveira de FPSL, Moita GF, Ferreira EFE, Drummond AMA, Vargas AMD, et al. Economic evaluation of school health programmes: a mapping review (2005-2015) (2020) Nursing and Health Care 5: 33-40.

Keywords

Cost, Economic evaluation, School health.