Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pulkki-Brännström, Anni-Maria, Haghparast-Bidgoli, Hassan, Batura, Neha, Colbourn, Tim, Azad, Kishwar, Banda, Florida, Banda, Lumbani, Borghi, Josephine, Fottrell, Edward, Kim, Sungwook, Makwenda, Charles, Ojha, Amit Kumar, Prost, Audrey, Rosato, Mikey, Shaha, Sanjit Kumer, Sinha, Rajesh, Costello, Anthony, Skordis, Jolene
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7886438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33085753
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa081
_version_ 1783651793638522880
author Pulkki-Brännström, Anni-Maria
Haghparast-Bidgoli, Hassan
Batura, Neha
Colbourn, Tim
Azad, Kishwar
Banda, Florida
Banda, Lumbani
Borghi, Josephine
Fottrell, Edward
Kim, Sungwook
Makwenda, Charles
Ojha, Amit Kumar
Prost, Audrey
Rosato, Mikey
Shaha, Sanjit Kumer
Sinha, Rajesh
Costello, Anthony
Skordis, Jolene
author_facet Pulkki-Brännström, Anni-Maria
Haghparast-Bidgoli, Hassan
Batura, Neha
Colbourn, Tim
Azad, Kishwar
Banda, Florida
Banda, Lumbani
Borghi, Josephine
Fottrell, Edward
Kim, Sungwook
Makwenda, Charles
Ojha, Amit Kumar
Prost, Audrey
Rosato, Mikey
Shaha, Sanjit Kumer
Sinha, Rajesh
Costello, Anthony
Skordis, Jolene
author_sort Pulkki-Brännström, Anni-Maria
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7886438
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78864382021-02-19 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 Pulkki-Brännström, Anni-Maria Haghparast-Bidgoli, Hassan Batura, Neha Colbourn, Tim Azad, Kishwar Banda, Florida Banda, Lumbani Borghi, Josephine Fottrell, Edward Kim, Sungwook Makwenda, Charles Ojha, Amit Kumar Prost, Audrey Rosato, Mikey Shaha, Sanjit Kumer Sinha, Rajesh Costello, Anthony Skordis, Jolene Health Policy Plan Original Articles 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. Oxford University Press 2020-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC7886438/ /pubmed/33085753 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa081 Text en © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Pulkki-Brännström, Anni-Maria
Haghparast-Bidgoli, Hassan
Batura, Neha
Colbourn, Tim
Azad, Kishwar
Banda, Florida
Banda, Lumbani
Borghi, Josephine
Fottrell, Edward
Kim, Sungwook
Makwenda, Charles
Ojha, Amit Kumar
Prost, Audrey
Rosato, Mikey
Shaha, Sanjit Kumer
Sinha, Rajesh
Costello, Anthony
Skordis, Jolene
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7886438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33085753
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czaa081
work_keys_str_mv AT pulkkibrannstromannimaria participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT haghparastbidgolihassan participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT baturaneha participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT colbourntim participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT azadkishwar participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT bandaflorida participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT bandalumbani participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT borghijosephine participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT fottrelledward participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT kimsungwook participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT makwendacharles participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT ojhaamitkumar participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT prostaudrey participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT rosatomikey participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT shahasanjitkumer participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT sinharajesh participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT costelloanthony participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability
AT skordisjolene participatorylearningandactioncycleswithwomensgroupstopreventneonataldeathinlowresourcesettingsamulticountrycomparisonofcosteffectivenessandaffordability