Disease Burden and Direct… | medRxiv

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

16/100

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Costs and economics

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Plain-language summary

In fixed-effects panel models that accounted for spending persistence, lagged DALYs were not statistically associated with subsequent spending. Suicide prevention and addiction showed significant lower-than-expected health-sector spending (self-harm: β = -0·23; drug use disorders: β = -0·08 to -0·18 across lag models). Disorders with long-standing multisectoral programs tended to show lower spending-to-burden ratios, suggesting that coordinated action beyond the health sector may reduce downstream health-sector demand. For Switzerland and similar health systems, these findings support national brain-health strategies that strengthen life-course prevention and early intervention, and that integrate financing with burden data to inform priority setting and periodic reassessment of resource allocation.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Bègue, I., Sinanaj, L., Steele, X., Guzman, R., Crivelli, L., Datta, A. N., et al. (2026). Disease Burden and Direct Health-Care Spending on Brain Conditions in Switzerland: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease 2023 Study for the Implementation of the Swiss Brain Health Plan. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.05.01.26352201

Vancouver

Bègue I, Sinanaj L, Steele X, Guzman R, Crivelli L, Datta AN, et al. Disease Burden and Direct Health-Care Spending on Brain Conditions in Switzerland: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease 2023 Study for the Implementation of the Swiss Brain Health Plan. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.05.01.26352201.

BibTeX

@article{begue2026-5a92cec2,
  author  = {Bègue, I. and Sinanaj, L. and Steele, X. and Guzman, R. and Crivelli, L. and Datta, A. N. and Bassetti, C. L.},
  title   = {{Disease Burden and Direct Health-Care Spending on Brain Conditions in Switzerland: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease 2023 Study for the Implementation of the Swiss Brain Health Plan}},
  journal = {medRxiv},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.64898/2026.05.01.26352201},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.05.01.26352201}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a follow-up (cohort) study. People are observed over time and not assigned to anything, so an association can reflect other differences between groups. Look at how long follow-up lasted, how many dropped out, and whether the authors adjusted for age, education and other health conditions.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded moderate. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Moderate means the abstract mentions a cohort, case-control or longitudinal design. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

In fixed-effects panel models that accounted for spending persistence, lagged DALYs were not statistically associated with subsequent spending.
Suicide prevention and addiction showed significant lower-than-expected health-sector spending (self-harm: β = -0·23; drug use disorders: β = -0·08 to -0·18 across lag models).
Disorders with long-standing multisectoral programs tended to show lower spending-to-burden ratios, suggesting that coordinated action beyond the health sector may reduce downstream health-sector demand.
For Switzerland and similar health systems, these findings support national brain-health strategies that strengthen life-course prevention and early intervention, and that integrate financing with burden data to inform priority setting and periodic reassessment of resource allocation.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Costs & economics →

Study details

Study designlongitudinal study
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 16/100

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 35 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 35 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	2 / 10	Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design	7 / 12	A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	4 / 10	Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent	5 / 5	2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	1 / 2	Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	22 / 62	Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 35 out of 100.
Total	35 / 100	Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Costs and economics from nearby years

Also tagged “costs”

265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Costs and economics

See all studies in Costs and economics →