What the work can inform
Compare clinical outcomes, costs and resource use with explicit assumptions, perspective and uncertainty. Findings support deliberation by clinicians, institutions and decision-makers.
HEALTH ECONOMICS · DECISION SCIENCE
Global Health Economics and Decision Science Observatory
Make health investment decisions explicit, testable and informed by evidence.
We develop economic evaluations and decision frameworks that connect clinical outcomes, resource use, costs and uncertainty. Work can inform treatment choices, service design and health-system investment. Methods, perspective, comparators, time horizon and data limitations are stated so clinicians, governments, institutions and funders can understand the trade-offs. Models support transparent deliberation; they do not replace clinical or public judgment.
THE QUESTION · THE USE · THE STATUS
Which options offer value in a specific health system?
What exists and what comes next
Published outputs and work under review are identified in Evidence. Results depend on the population, comparators, data and decision threshold; they cannot be transferred unchanged between countries.
Which route fits my interest?
Join a projectReview requirements and availability. Use your membership category; the external route appears where eligible.Contribute expertise or dataDescribe your contribution without transferring confidential information. Scope, permissions and responsibilities are agreed before work begins.Institutions and fundersDiscuss a defined collaboration: question, deliverables, resources and governance.
Each project must define accountable investigators, data sources and date, methods, limitations, applicable approvals and contributions. Funding and membership do not determine findings. Scientific governance →
Capacity mapping · open to external applicants
Members and external applicants may apply to ICU, ROP and pediatric cancer capacity-mapping projects. Membership is not required for these mapping calls; each brief retains its residence, language and scientific requirements.
- Applications close
- 31 October 2026 · 23:59 Colombia time
- Decision notification
- 1–3 November 2026
- Induction and training
- 4–7 November 2026
Selection and onboarding are subject to eligibility, available places and project-specific permissions. These dates do not authorize clinical work.
SCOPE · INPUTS · USE
What we could develop with your team.
These pathways guide a scientific conversation. Outputs, resources, permissions and timing are agreed per project; they are not a contractual offer or results already delivered.
Cost effectiveness
- Inputs we would need
- The decision, alternatives, perspective, local costs, outcomes and decision threshold.
- A possible agreed output
- A transparent model or analysis with documented assumptions and sensitivity analyses.
- What it could inform
- Compare value in a specified health system; results are not universal recommendations.
Budget impact
- Inputs we would need
- Eligible population, adoption scenarios, time horizon and resource constraints.
- A possible agreed output
- Cost scenarios with explicit scale, uptake and implementation assumptions.
- What it could inform
- Plan affordability and resource needs without promising savings.
Uncertainty and transferability
- Inputs we would need
- The original evidence, local differences and questions from decision-makers.
- A possible agreed output
- A structured assessment of assumptions, missing inputs and adaptation needs.
- What it could inform
- Identify what must be checked before applying results in another context.
OUR SCIENTIFIC AGENDA
A connected program of work.
Economic evaluation
Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses with explicit comparators, perspective and time horizons.
Decision thresholds
Frameworks for willingness-to-pay calibration and net monetary benefit across settings.
Uncertainty & simulation
Probabilistic analysis, ICER stability and NMB/INMB to examine decision robustness.
Know the collaboration before you join.
Protocols, participating institutions, roles, data rights, IP and economic arrangements are documented for each project and may require negotiation with investigators and stakeholders.
Review the scientific collaboration framework →EVIDENCE & OUTPUTS
Follow the research, with its current status.
Manuscript preparation
Empirical instability of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in probabilistic economic evaluation
This methodological study evaluates the empirical stability of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio relative to net monetary benefit under probabilistic uncertainty, examining which metric communicates decision uncertainty more reliably.
View evidence record →
No public preprint or journal article is linked in the verified register.
PORTFOLIO & OPEN CALL
Find a project by topic and stage
Each project retains its status, requirements, dates and approval process. An open call does not establish patient recruitment, funding or permissions. Review the project brief before applying.
1 / 1 matching projects
Global Health Economic Decision Thresholds and Monetary Net Benefit Framework
Reproduce, critically evaluate and extend country-specific health economic decision thresholds and monetary net-benefit methods for global health-system decision making. The project will test sensitivity to alternative health-expenditure definitions, life-expectancy modelling choices, temporal updating, macroeconomic assumptions and uncertainty; outputs will emphasize transparent limitations and appropriate use in resource-allocation decisions.
Aim and scope
Reproduce, critically evaluate and extend country-specific health economic decision thresholds and monetary net-benefit methods for global health-system decision making. The project will test sensitivity to alternative health-expenditure definitions, life-expectancy modelling choices, temporal updating, macroeconomic assumptions and uncertainty; outputs will emphasize transparent limitations and appropriate use in resource-allocation decisions.
Apply as a member
Choose your active membership category.
Students & Young ProfessionalsClinicians & InvestigatorsONE NETWORK · SHARED SCIENTIFIC CAPACITY
Your expertise. A team to move it forward.
Observatory participation connects clinical and methodological expertise with research execution, collaboration and health-system questions. The membership pathway is Clinicians & Investigators, with the same benefits and conditions across observatories.
There is no additional Observatory subscription. Membership supports shared staff, infrastructure, approved publication support and community programs. Scientific admission and individual project approval remain separate decisions.
Develop approved research
Propose reviews, original studies, case reports or innovation projects. Staffing, publication support, timelines and costs are agreed within the membership terms and a project-specific plan.
Use a verified affiliation
An approved, documented Observatory role may support the corresponding microscopIA affiliation for eligible work. Membership alone does not authorize institutional representation, endorsement or unrestricted use of the name.
Build a research group
Propose a hosted group with a research program, leader CV and at least three projects. Scientific fit, supervision, resources and a recruitment plan must be approved before launch.
Explore hosted groups →From proposal to participation
Share your scientific profile
Provide your CV, expertise, availability, conflicts of interest and a proposed contribution. Keep patient information out of the application.
Agree the scope
microscopIA reviews scientific fit and confirms responsibilities, project supervision and required permissions. We aim to communicate a decision or request for information within 10 calendar days.
Start approved work
Execution begins after written scientific approval, an agreed resource allocation and any required ethics, data or institutional authorization.
Authorship follows substantive contributions, manuscript review, final approval and accountability. Payment does not secure authorship, first-author position, editorial acceptance, data access or a role in a particular project.
Membership conditions → · Scientific collaboration framework →
FOR CLINICIANS & SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATORS
Bring your expertise. Shape the next question.
Bring clinical context to economic models: relevant comparators, care pathways, resource use and outcomes that matter to patients.
Clinical expertise
Define meaningful questions, outcomes and interpretation.
Discuss this contribution →Regional collaboration
Discuss local service mapping, feasibility and institutional coordination.
Discuss this contribution →Methods & policy
Contribute to evidence appraisal, modelling or decision briefs.
Discuss this contribution →WORK WITH THE PROGRAM
Choose how to take part.
Explore collaboration, project participation and responsible funding through the program’s existing pathways.
PHILANTHROPY & PARTNERSHIP
Support the work. Expand what is possible.
Individuals, families, institutions and funders can make a one-time contribution or discuss recurring support. Contributions are separate from membership and preserve scientific independence.
One environment. Clear responsibilities.
microscopIA hosts the scientific environment and manages contracts, resources and institutional appointments.
Research groups
Appointed scientific leads develop focused programs and supervise approved work.
Observatories and initiatives
Steering committees connect groups and experts to review priorities, proposals, conflicts and progress.
Projects
Named principal investigators remain accountable for study protocols, permissions, methods and contributions.
Committee seats and delegated authority require formal appointment. microscopIA coordinates intake and appoints competent reviewers before execution. Membership does not confer authority to represent or contract for the organization.
Collaboration and governance →From proposal to execution
Every new research project, case report, case series or innovation proposal requires written approval from the Observatory steering committee under microscopIA governance or appointed research group scientific lead. Admission or membership does not replace this approval.
- Submit the aim, methods, proposed team, data, resources and expected outputs to the responsible scientific authority.
- The scientific authority reviews and approves the proposal, documenting its scope and conditions.
- Once approved, the scientific reviewing authority notifies microscopIA to initiate execution of the approved project.
- microscopIA coordinates responsibilities, staff, budget, milestones and data/IP agreements. Activities begin with the required ethics, institutional and regulatory permissions in place.
microscopIA appoints competent reviewers before execution. Reviewers disclose conflicts and recuse themselves where appropriate. Membership does not confer contracting authority or permission to reuse contacts or data for external projects.
Protocols and collaboration agreements