Cargando…

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of mCME Version 2.0: An SMS-Based Continuing Medical Education Program for HIV Clinicians in Vietnam

BACKGROUND: The Mobile Continuing Medical Education (mCME) 2.0 project was a randomized controlled trial that found that a 6-month text message-based CME intervention improved both the use of online medical training resources and medical knowledge among a cadre of HIV clinicians in Vietnam. This com...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sabin, Lora L., Mesic, Aldina, Le, Bao Ngoc, Halim, Nafisa, Cao, Chi Thi Hue, Bonawitz, Rachael, Nguyen, Ha Viet, Larson, Anna, Nguyen, Tam Thi Thanh, Le, Anh Ngoc, Gill, Christopher J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Global Health: Science and Practice 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9426988/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36041848
http://dx.doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00008
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The Mobile Continuing Medical Education (mCME) 2.0 project was a randomized controlled trial that found that a 6-month text message-based CME intervention improved both the use of online medical training resources and medical knowledge among a cadre of HIV clinicians in Vietnam. This companion study analyzed intervention costs and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted (1) a financial analysis based on costs incurred during the trial’s planning and implementation; (2) an economic analysis to consider resource utilization; and (3) cost-effectiveness analyses to estimate cost inputs relative to impact: increase in self-study (measured by visits to online courses) and increase in knowledge (measured by exam score improvement) (in 2016 US$). Finally, we estimated the economic cost of a 9-month national program and a 10-year scaled-up model (in 2021 US$). RESULTS: The total financial cost of the intervention was US$49,552; the main cost drivers were personnel time (71.4%) and technology inputs (14.9%). The total economic cost was estimated at US$92,212, with the same key cost inputs (representing 77.7% and 8.0%, respectively, of total costs). The financial cost per 10% increase in accessing online courses was US$923, while the cost of improving knowledge, measured by a 10% improvement in mean exam score across the study population, was US$32,057 (US$605 per intervention clinician). The comparable total economic cost of each improvement, respectively, was US$1,770 and US$61,452 (US$1,159 per intervention clinician). A future 9-month national program was estimated to cost US$37,403, while the full 10-year scaled-up program was estimated at US$196,446. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis indicates that leveraging mobile technology could be a feasible way to provide distance learning to health professions across Vietnam at a relatively low cost. Given the need for practical ways to expand CME in resource-constrained regions of the world, this approach warrants further study and possible adoption.