| 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. |
- Lewycka, Sonia, et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of women's groups and volunteer peer counselling on rates of mortality, morbidity, and health behaviours in mothers and children in rural Malawi (MaiMwana) : a factorial, cluster-randomised controlled trial
- 2013
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - : Elsevier. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 381:9879, s. 1721-35
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Women's groups and health education by peer counsellors can improve the health of mothers and children. We assessed their effects on mortality and breastfeeding rates in rural Malawi.METHODS: We did a 2×2 factorial, cluster-randomised trial in 185,888 people in Mchinji district. 48 equal-sized clusters were randomly allocated to four groups with a computer-generated number sequence. 24 facilitators guided groups through a community action cycle to tackle maternal and child health problems. 72 trained volunteer peer counsellors made home visits at five timepoints during pregnancy and after birth to support breastfeeding and infant care. Primary outcomes for the women's group intervention were maternal, perinatal, neonatal, and infant mortality rates (MMR, PMR, NMR, and IMR, respectively); and for the peer counselling were IMR and exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) rates. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered as ISRCTN06477126.FINDINGS: We monitored outcomes of 26,262 births between 2005 and 2009. In a factorial model adjusted only for clustering and the volunteer peer counselling intervention, in women's group areas, for years 2 and 3, we noted non-significant decreases in NMR (odds ratio 0.93, 0.64-1.35) and MMR (0.54, 0.28-1.04). After adjustment for parity, socioeconomic quintile, and baseline measures, effects were larger for NMR (0.85, 0.59-1.22) and MMR (0.48, 0.26-0.91). Because of the interaction between the two interventions, a stratified analysis was done. For women's groups, in adjusted analyses, MMR fell by 74% (0.26, 0.10-0.70), and NMR by 41% (0.59, 0.40-0.86) in areas with no peer counsellors, but there was no effect in areas with counsellors (1.09, 0.40-2.98, and 1.38, 0.75-2.54). Factorial analysis for the peer counselling intervention for years 1-3 showed a fall in IMR of 18% (0.82, 0.67-1.00) and an improvement in EBF rates (2.42, 1.48-3.96). The results of the stratified, adjusted analysis showed a 36% reduction in IMR (0.64, 0.48-0.85) but no effect on EBF (1.18, 0.63-2.25) in areas without women's groups, and in areas with women's groups there was no effect on IMR (1.05, 0.82-1.36) and an increase in EBF (5.02, 2.67-9.44). The cost of women's groups was US$114 per year of life lost (YLL) averted and that of peer counsellors was $33 per YLL averted, using stratified data from single intervention comparisons.INTERPRETATION: Community mobilisation through women's groups and volunteer peer counsellor health education are methods to improve maternal and child health outcomes in poor rural populations in Africa.
|
|
