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

Author:

Pulkki-Brännström Anni-Maria12,Haghparast-Bidgoli Hassan2ORCID,Batura Neha2ORCID,Colbourn Tim2,Azad Kishwar3,Banda Florida4,Banda Lumbani5,Borghi Josephine6,Fottrell Edward2,Kim Sungwook7ORCID,Makwenda Charles5,Ojha Amit Kumar8,Prost Audrey2,Rosato Mikey9,Shaha Sanjit Kumer3,Sinha Rajesh8,Costello Anthony2,Skordis Jolene2

Affiliation:

1. Department of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå S-901 87, Sweden

2. UCL Institute for Global Health, UCL (University College London), 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH, UK

3. Perinatal Care Project, Diabetic Association of Bangladesh, 122 Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh

4. MaiMwana Project, Mchinji, Malawi

5. Parent and Child Health Initiative (PACHI), Area 14 Plot 171, Lilongwe, Malawi

6. Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK

7. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK

8. Ekjut, Plot no. - 556B, Potka Chakradharpur, West Singhbhum, Pin - 833102, Jharkhand, India

9. Women and Children First (UK), United House, North Road, London, N7 9DP, UK

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Health Policy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3