Ellwein L B, Lepkowski J M, Thulasiraj R D, Brilliant G E
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
Int Ophthalmol. 1991 May;15(3):175-83. doi: 10.1007/BF00153924.
The cost and effectiveness of eight approaches to reducing barriers to cataract surgery were evaluated in a rural area of South India during 1987-1989. The approaches were based on four intervention alternatives--aphakic motivator (AM), basic eye health worker (BW), screening van (SV), and mass media (MM). Each intervention was offered at two levels of economic incentive: partial, which provides free surgery and hospital stay, and full, which also provides transport from the recipient's village to the hospital and free food during the hospital stay. Evaluations took place in a probability selection of 90 villages, including ten control villages not subjected to either of the interventions. Only costs unique to patients from the intervention villages were considered: Health education and screening costs were included, surgery costs were not. Percentage reductions in the cataract blind backlog and increases in surgical coverage were used as effectiveness measures. Analyses suggest that the SV and AM interventions, both with full economic incentive, offer the greatest advantage. The AM intervention is the more effective of the two, but also the more costly.
1987年至1989年期间,在印度南部的一个农村地区评估了八种减少白内障手术障碍方法的成本和效果。这些方法基于四种干预方案——无晶状体激励者(AM)、基础眼保健工作者(BW)、筛查车(SV)和大众媒体(MM)。每种干预措施都提供了两种经济激励水平:部分激励,提供免费手术和住院治疗;完全激励,还提供从受助者村庄到医院的交通以及住院期间的免费食物。评估在随机选择的90个村庄中进行,其中包括10个未接受任何一种干预措施的对照村庄。仅考虑干预村庄患者的特有成本:包括健康教育和筛查成本,不包括手术成本。白内障致盲积压病例的减少百分比和手术覆盖率的增加用作效果衡量指标。分析表明,完全经济激励下的SV和AM干预措施优势最大。AM干预措施在两者中效果更佳,但成本也更高。