| 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. |
- Fottrell, Edward, et al.
(författare)
-
The effect of increased coverage of participatory women's groups on neonatal mortality in Bangladesh : A cluster randomized trial
- 2013
-
Ingår i: JAMA pediatrics. - : American Medical Association. - 2168-6211 .- 2168-6203. ; 167:9, s. 816-25
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE: Community-based interventions can reduce neonatal mortality when health systems are weak. Population coverage of target groups may be an important determinant of their effect on behavior and mortality. A women's group trial at coverage of 1 group per 1414 population in rural Bangladesh showed no effect on neonatal mortality, despite a similar intervention having a significant effect on neonatal and maternal death in comparable settings.OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a participatory women's group intervention with higher population coverage on neonatal mortality in Bangladesh.DESIGN: A cluster randomized controlled trial in 9 intervention and 9 control clusters.SETTING: Rural Bangladesh.PARTICIPANTS: Women permanently residing in 18 unions in 3 districts and accounting for 19 301 births during the final 24 months of the intervention.INTERVENTIONS: Women's groups at a coverage of 1 per 309 population that proceed through a participatory learning and action cycle in which they prioritize issues that affected maternal and neonatal health and design and implement strategies to address these issues.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Neonatal mortality rate.RESULTS: Analysis included 19 301 births during the final 24 months of the intervention. More than one-third of newly pregnant women joined the groups. The neonatal mortality rate was significantly lower in the intervention arm (21.3 neonatal deaths per 1000 live births vs 30.1 per 1000 in control areas), a reduction in neonatal mortality of 38% (risk ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.43-0.89]) when adjusted for socioeconomic factors. The cost-effectiveness was US $220 to $393 per year of life lost averted. Cause-specific mortality rates suggest reduced deaths due to infections and those associated with prematurity/low birth weight. Improvements were seen in hygienic home delivery practices, newborn thermal care, and breastfeeding practices.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Women's group community mobilization, delivered at adequate population coverage, is a highly cost-effective approach to improve newborn survival and health behavior indicators in rural Bangladesh.TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN01805825.
|
|
