Pulkki-Brännström Anni-Maria, Haghparast-Bidgoli Hassan, Batura Neha, Colbourn Tim, Azad Kishwar, Banda Florida, Banda Lumbani, Borghi Josephine, Fottrell Edward, Kim Sungwook, Makwenda Charles, Ojha Amit Kumar, Prost Audrey, Rosato Mikey, Shaha Sanjit Kumer, Sinha Rajesh, Costello Anthony, Skordis Jolene
Department of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå S-901 87, Sweden.
UCL Institute for Global Health, UCL (University College London), 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH, UK.
Health Policy Plan. 2021 Feb 16;35(10):1280-1289. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czaa081.
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.
世界卫生组织建议将与妇女团体开展的参与式学习和行动循环作为降低新生儿死亡的一种具有成本效益的策略。覆盖率是干预效果的一个决定因素,但对于成本效益估计为何存在显著差异却知之甚少。本文重新分析了印度、尼泊尔、孟加拉国和马拉维六项试验的原始成本数据,以描述资源使用情况,探究成本及成本效益比率存在差异的原因,并对扩大规模的成本进行建模。整理了原始成本数据,并统一了成本核算方法。从一项荟萃分析中提取有效性数据,并将其转换为挽救的新生儿生命年数。从提供者角度与当前做法相比计算成本效益比率。探讨了单位成本和成本效益比率与覆盖率、规模和强度之间的关联。使用当地单位成本和新生儿死亡率的荟萃分析效应估计值对扩大规模的成本和结果进行建模。结果以2016年国际美元表示。每例活产的平均成本为203美元(范围:61美元至537美元)。启动成本很高,人员支出是主要成本组成部分。每挽救一个新生儿生命年的成本在135美元至1627美元之间。使用基于收入的阈值时,该干预措施具有很高的成本效益。各试验间成本效益的差异与成本密切相关。去除成本和生命年的贴现后,所有成本效益比率大幅降低。在这四个国家,将该干预措施推广到农村人口的成本占政府卫生支出的1.2%至6.3%。我们的分析表明了采用整群随机对照试验设计对基于社区的干预措施进行经济评估时所面临的挑战。我们的结果证实,妇女团体是改善农村人口出生结局的一种具有成本效益且可能负担得起的策略。