| 1. |
- Batura, Neha, et al.
(författare)
-
Collecting and analysing cost data for complex public health trials : reflections on practice
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Global Health Action. - : CoAction Publishing. - 1654-9716 .- 1654-9880. ; 7, s. 23257-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for the conduct of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) are mainly applicable to facility-based interventions in high-income settings. Differences in the unit of analysis and the high cost of data collection can make these guidelines challenging to follow within public health trials in low- and middle- income settings.OBJECTIVE: This paper reflects on the challenges experienced within our own work and proposes solutions that may be useful to others attempting to collect, analyse, and compare cost data between public health research sites in low- and middle- income countries.DESIGN: We describe the generally accepted methods (norms) for collecting and analysing cost data in a single-site trial from the provider perspective. We then describe our own experience applying these methods within eight comparable cluster randomised, controlled, trials. We describe the strategies used to maximise adherence to the norm, highlight ways in which we deviated from the norm, and reflect on the learning and limitations that resulted.RESULTS: When the expenses incurred by a number of small research sites are used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of delivering an intervention on a national scale, then deciding which expenses constitute 'start-up' costs will be a nontrivial decision that may differ among sites. Similarly, the decision to include or exclude research or monitoring and evaluation costs can have a significant impact on the findings. We separated out research costs and argued that monitoring and evaluation costs should be reported as part of the total trial cost. The human resource constraints that we experienced are also likely to be common to other trials. As we did not have an economist in each site, we collaborated with key personnel at each site who were trained to use a standardised cost collection tool. This approach both accommodated our resource constraints and served as a knowledge sharing and capacity building process within the research teams.CONCLUSIONS: Given the practical reality of conducting randomised, controlled trials of public health interventions in low- and middle- income countries, it is not always possible to adhere to prescribed guidelines for the analysis of cost effectiveness. Compromises are frequently required as researchers seek a pragmatic balance between rigor and feasibility. There is no single solution to this tension but researchers are encouraged to be mindful of the limitations that accompany compromise, whilst being reassured that meaningful analyses can still be conducted with the resulting data.
|
|
| 2. |
- Colbourn, Tim, et al.
(författare)
-
Cost-effectiveness and affordability of community mobilisation through women's groups and quality improvement in health facilities (MaiKhanda trial) in Malawi
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1478-7547. ; 13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Understanding the cost-effectiveness and affordability of interventions to reduce maternal and newborn deaths is critical to persuading policymakers and donors to implement at scale. The effectiveness of community mobilisation through women's groups and health facility quality improvement, both aiming to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality, was assessed by a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in rural Malawi in 2008-2010. In this paper, we calculate intervention cost-effectiveness and model the affordability of the interventions at scale.METHODS: Bayesian methods are used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of the community and facility interventions on their own (CI, FI), and together (FICI), compared to current practice in rural Malawi. Effects are estimated with Monte Carlo simulation using the combined full probability distributions of intervention effects on stillbirths, neonatal deaths and maternal deaths. Cost data was collected prospectively from a provider perspective using an ingredients approach and disaggregated at the intervention (not cluster or individual) level. Expected Incremental Benefit, Cost-effectiveness Acceptability Curves and Expected Value of Information (EVI) were calculated using a threshold of $780 per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, the per capita gross domestic product of Malawi in 2013 international $.RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness of CI, FI, and combined FICI was $79, $281, and $146 per DALY averted respectively, compared to current practice. FI is dominated by CI and FICI. Taking into account uncertainty, both CI and combined FICI are highly likely to be cost effective (probability 98% and 93%, EVI $210,423 and $598,177 respectively). Combined FICI is incrementally cost effective compared to either intervention individually (probability 60%, ICER $292, EIB $9,334,580 compared to CI). Future scenarios also found FICI to be the optimal decision. Scaling-up to the whole of Malawi, CI is of greatest value for money, potentially averting 13.0% of remaining annual DALYs from stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths for the equivalent of 6.8% of current annual expenditure on maternal and neonatal health in Malawi.CONCLUSIONS: Community mobilisation through women's groups is a highly cost-effective and affordable strategy to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality in Malawi. Combining community mobilisation with health facility quality improvement is more effective, more costly, but also highly cost-effective and potentially affordable in this context.
|
|
| 3. |
- Prost, Audrey, et al.
(författare)
-
Women's groups practising participatory learning and action to improve maternal and newborn health in low-resource settings : a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2013
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 381:9879, s. 1736-46
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Maternal and neonatal mortality rates remain high in many low-income and middle-income countries. Different approaches for the improvement of birth outcomes have been used in community-based interventions, with heterogeneous effects on survival. We assessed the effects of women's groups practising participatory learning and action, compared with usual care, on birth outcomes in low-resource settings.METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials undertaken in Bangladesh, India, Malawi, and Nepal in which the effects of women's groups practising participatory learning and action were assessed to identify population-level predictors of effect on maternal mortality, neonatal mortality, and stillbirths. We also reviewed the cost-effectiveness of the women's group intervention and estimated its potential effect at scale in Countdown countries.FINDINGS: Seven trials (119,428 births) met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses of all trials showed that exposure to women's groups was associated with a 37% reduction in maternal mortality (odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.32-0.94), a 23% reduction in neonatal mortality (0.77, 0.65-0.90), and a 9% non-significant reduction in stillbirths (0.91, 0.79-1.03), with high heterogeneity for maternal (I(2)=58.8%, p=0.024) and neonatal results (I(2)=64.7%, p=0.009). In the meta-regression analyses, the proportion of pregnant women in groups was linearly associated with reduction in both maternal and neonatal mortality (p=0.026 and p=0.011, respectively). A subgroup analysis of the four studies in which at least 30% of pregnant women participated in groups showed a 55% reduction in maternal mortality (0.45, 0.17-0.73) and a 33% reduction in neonatal mortality (0.67, 0.59-0.74). The intervention was cost effective by WHO standards and could save an estimated 283,000 newborn infants and 41,100 mothers per year if implemented in rural areas of 74 Countdown countries.INTERPRETATION: With the participation of at least a third of pregnant women and adequate population coverage, women's groups practising participatory learning and action are a cost-effective strategy to improve maternal and neonatal survival in low-resource settings.
|
|
| 4. |
- Pulkki-Brännström, Anni-Maria, et al.
(författare)
-
Participatory learning and action cycles with women s groups to prevent neonatal death in low-resource settings : A multi-country comparison of cost-effectiveness and affordability
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Health Policy and Planning. - : Oxford University Press. - 0268-1080 .- 1460-2237. ; 16:35
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- WHO recommends participatory learning and action cycles with women's groups as a cost-effective strategy to reduce neonatal deaths. Coverage is a determinant of intervention effectiveness, but little is known about why cost-effectiveness estimates vary significantly. This article reanalyses primary cost data from six trials in India, Nepal, Bangladesh and Malawi to describe resource use, explore reasons for differences in costs and cost-effectiveness ratios, and model the cost of scale-up. Primary cost data were collated, and costing methods harmonized. Effectiveness was extracted from a meta-analysis and converted to neonatal life-years saved. Cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated from the provider perspective compared with current practice. Associations between unit costs and cost-effectiveness ratios with coverage, scale and intensity were explored. Scale-up costs and outcomes were modelled using local unit costs and the meta-analysis effect estimate for neonatal mortality. Results were expressed in 2016 international dollars. The average cost was $203 (range: $61-$537) per live birth. Start-up costs were large, and spending on staff was the main cost component. The cost per neonatal life-year saved ranged from $135 to $1627. The intervention was highly cost-effective when using income-based thresholds. Variation in cost-effectiveness across trials was strongly correlated with costs. Removing discounting of costs and life-years substantially reduced all cost-effectiveness ratios. The cost of rolling out the intervention to rural populations ranges from 1.2% to 6.3% of government health expenditure in the four countries. Our analyses demonstrate the challenges faced by economic evaluations of community-based interventions evaluated using a cluster randomized controlled trial design. Our results confirm that women's groups are a cost-effective and potentially affordable strategy for improving birth outcomes among rural populations.
|
|
| 5. |
- Watts, Nick, et al.
(författare)
-
Health and climate change : policy responses to protect public health
- 2015
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 386:10006, s. 1861-1914
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change has been formed to map out the impacts of climate change, and the necessary policy responses, in order to ensure the highest attainable standards of health for populations worldwide. This Commission is multidisciplinary and international in nature, with strong collaboration between academic centres in Europe and China. The central finding from the Commission's work is that tackling climate change could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century. The key messages from the Commission are summarised below, accompanied by ten underlying recommendations to accelerate action in the next 5 years.
|
|
| 6. |
- Watts, Nick, et al.
(författare)
-
The Lancet Countdown : tracking progress on health and climate change
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 389:10074, s. 1151-1164
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Lancet Countdown: tracking progress on health and climate change is an international, multidisciplinary research collaboration between academic institutions and practitioners across the world. It follows on from the work of the 2015 Lancet Commission, which concluded that the response to climate change could be "the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century". The Lancet Countdown aims to track the health impacts of climate hazards; health resilience and adaptation; health co-benefits of climate change mitigation; economics and finance; and political and broader engagement. These focus areas form the five thematic working groups of the Lancet Countdown and represent different aspects of the complex association between health and climate change. These thematic groups will provide indicators for a global overview of health and climate change; national case studies highlighting countries leading the way or going against the trend; and engagement with a range of stakeholders. The Lancet Countdown ultimately aims to report annually on a series of indicators across these five working groups. This paper outlines the potential indicators and indicator domains to be tracked by the collaboration, with suggestions on the methodologies and datasets available to achieve this end. The proposed indicator domains require further refinement, and mark the beginning of an ongoing consultation process-from November, 2016 to early 2017-to develop these domains, identify key areas not currently covered, and change indicators where necessary. This collaboration will actively seek to engage with existing monitoring processes, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and WHO's climate and health country profiles. The indicators will also evolve over time through ongoing collaboration with experts and a range of stakeholders, and be dependent on the emergence of new evidence and knowledge. During the course of its work, the Lancet Countdown will adopt a collaborative and iterative process, which aims to complement existing initiatives, welcome engagement with new partners, and be open to developing new research projects on health and climate change.
|
|
