Pega Frank, Wilson Nick
Burden of Disease Epidemiology, Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Programme, University of Otago, Wellington, PO Box 7343, Wellington, New Zealand.
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 1;11(6):e0151812. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151812. eCollection 2016.
Housing improvements have considerable potential for improving health. So does the provision of insecticide-treated bednets for malaria prevention. Therefore we aimed to conduct updated systematic reviews of health economic analyses in both these intervention domains.
The search strategy included economic analyses of housing improvement interventions and use of insecticide-treated bednets for community-dwelling, healthy populations (published between 1 January 2000 and 15 April 2014). We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and three health economics databases. Thirty-five economic analyses of seven types of intervention fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Most included studies adopted a health sector perspective and were cost-effectiveness analyses using decision analytic modeling or conducted alongside trials. The overall quality of the studies was generally likely to be adequate for informing policy-making (albeit with limitations in some areas). There was fairly consistent evidence for the cost-effectiveness/favorable cost-benefit of removing indoor lead to prevent lead poisoning and sequelae, and retrofitting insulation to prevent lung disease. But the value of assessing and improving home safety and providing smoke alarms to prevent injuries was more mixed and the economic evidence was inconclusive or insufficient for: home ventilation to prevent lung disease, installing heaters to prevent lung disease and regulating tap water temperatures to prevent scalding. Few studies (n = 4) considered health equity. The 12 studies of providing insecticide-treated bednets or hammocks to prevent malaria found these interventions to be moderately to highly cost-effective.
This systematic review provides updated evidence that several housing improvement interventions (such as removing indoor lead and retrofitting insulation) and also the provision of insecticide-treated bednets are cost-effective interventions. Nevertheless, for some interventions additional analyses are required to better clarify their health economic and health equity value.
住房改善对于增进健康具有巨大潜力。提供经杀虫剂处理的蚊帐预防疟疾也是如此。因此,我们旨在对这两个干预领域的卫生经济分析进行更新的系统评价。
检索策略包括对住房改善干预措施以及为社区居住的健康人群使用经杀虫剂处理的蚊帐的经济分析(发表于2000年1月1日至2014年4月15日之间)。我们检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库、MEDLINE、PubMed、EMBASE以及三个卫生经济数据库。七类干预措施的35项经济分析符合纳入标准。大多数纳入研究采用卫生部门视角,是使用决策分析模型的成本效益分析,或与试验同时进行。研究的总体质量通常可能足以指导决策(尽管在某些领域存在局限性)。有相当一致的证据表明,去除室内铅以预防铅中毒及其后遗症以及进行隔热改造以预防肺部疾病具有成本效益/有利的成本效益。但是,评估和改善家庭安全性以及提供烟雾报警器以预防伤害的价值则更为复杂,对于以下方面的经济证据尚无定论或不足:通过家庭通风预防肺部疾病、安装加热器预防肺部疾病以及调节自来水温度以预防烫伤。很少有研究(n = 4)考虑健康公平性。12项关于提供经杀虫剂处理的蚊帐或吊床预防疟疾的研究发现,这些干预措施具有中度至高度成本效益。
本系统评价提供了更新的证据,表明几种住房改善干预措施(如去除室内铅和进行隔热改造)以及提供经杀虫剂处理的蚊帐是具有成本效益的干预措施。然而,对于某些干预措施,需要进行额外分析以更好地阐明其卫生经济和健康公平价值。