Vaughan Kelsey, Kok Maryse C, Witter Sophie, Dieleman Marjolein
Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), P.O. Box 95001, 1090 HA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Hum Resour Health. 2015 Sep 1;13:71. doi: 10.1186/s12960-015-0070-y.
This study sought to synthesize and critically review evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness of community health worker (CHW) programmes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to inform policy dialogue around their role in health systems.
From a larger systematic review on effectiveness and factors influencing performance of close-to-community providers, complemented by a supplementary search in PubMed, we did an exploratory review of a subset of papers (32 published primary studies and 4 reviews from the period January 2003-July 2015) about the costs and cost-effectiveness of CHWs. Studies were assessed using a data extraction matrix including methodological approach and findings.
Existing evidence suggests that, compared with standard care, using CHWs in health programmes can be a cost-effective intervention in LMICs, particularly for tuberculosis, but also - although evidence is weaker - in other areas such as reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health (RMNCH) and malaria.
Notwithstanding important caveats about the heterogeneity of the studies and their methodological limitations, findings reinforce the hypothesis that CHWs may represent, in some settings, a cost-effective approach for the delivery of essential health services. The less conclusive evidence about the cost-effectiveness of CHWs in other areas may reflect that these areas have been evaluated less (and less rigorously) than others, rather than an actual difference in cost-effectiveness in the various service delivery areas or interventions. Methodologically, areas for further development include how to properly assess costs from a societal perspective rather than just through the lens of the cost to government and accounting for non-tangible costs and non-health benefits commonly associated with CHWs.
本研究旨在综合并批判性地审视中低收入国家社区卫生工作者(CHW)项目的成本及成本效益证据,以为围绕其在卫生系统中作用的政策对话提供信息。
在对接近社区提供者的有效性及影响其绩效的因素进行的一项更大规模系统评价基础上,辅以在PubMed中的补充检索,我们对关于社区卫生工作者成本及成本效益的一部分论文(2003年1月至2015年7月期间发表的32项原始研究和4篇综述)进行了探索性评价。使用包括方法学途径和研究结果的数据提取矩阵对研究进行评估。
现有证据表明,与标准护理相比,在卫生项目中使用社区卫生工作者在中低收入国家可能是一种具有成本效益的干预措施,特别是对于结核病,不过在生殖、孕产妇、新生儿和儿童健康(RMNCH)及疟疾等其他领域(尽管证据较弱)也是如此。
尽管关于研究的异质性及其方法学局限性存在重要的告诫,但研究结果强化了这样一种假设,即在某些情况下,社区卫生工作者可能是提供基本卫生服务的一种具有成本效益的方法。关于社区卫生工作者在其他领域成本效益的证据不太确凿,这可能反映出这些领域的评估比其他领域少(且不够严格),而不是各服务提供领域或干预措施在成本效益方面存在实际差异。在方法学上,有待进一步发展的领域包括如何从社会角度而非仅从政府成本的角度正确评估成本,以及如何考虑与社区卫生工作者通常相关的无形成本和非健康效益。