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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |