Ramponi Francesco, Tafesse Wiktoria, Griffin Susan
Centre for Health Economics, Alcuin A Block, University of York ,York YO10 5DD, UK.
Health Policy Plan. 2021 May 17;36(4):533-541. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czaa149.
Strategies to address undernutrition in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) include various interventions implemented through different sectors of the economy. Our aim is to provide an overview of published economic evaluations of such interventions and to compare and contrast evaluations of interventions in different areas. We reviewed economic evaluations of nutrition interventions in LMICs published since 2015 and/or included in the Tufts Global registry or Disease Control Priorities 3rd edition. We categorized the studies by intervention type (preventive; therapeutic; fortification; delivery platforms), nutritional deficiency addressed and characteristics of the economic evaluation (e.g. type of model, costs and outcomes included). Of the 62 economic evaluations identified, 56 (90%) were cost-effectiveness analyses. Twenty-two (36%) evaluations investigated fortification and 23 (37%) preventive interventions. Forty-three percent of the evaluations of preventive interventions did not include a model, whereas most of fortification strategies used the same reference model. We identified different trends in cost categories and inclusion of health and non-health outcomes across evaluations in the four different topic areas. To illustrate the implications of such trends for decision-making, we compared a set of studies evaluating alternative strategies to combat zinc deficiency. We showed that the use of 'off-the-shelf' models and tools can potentially conceal what outcomes and costs and value judgements are used. Comparing interventions across different areas is fundamental to assist decision-makers in developing their nutrition strategy. Systematic differences in the economic evaluations of interventions delivered within and outside the health sector can undermine the ability to prioritize alternative nutrition strategies.
中低收入国家(LMICs)应对营养不良的策略包括通过经济的不同部门实施的各种干预措施。我们的目的是概述已发表的此类干预措施的经济评估,并比较和对比不同领域干预措施的评估。我们回顾了自2015年以来发表的和/或纳入塔夫茨全球登记册或《疾病控制优先事项》第三版的中低收入国家营养干预措施的经济评估。我们根据干预类型(预防性;治疗性;强化;交付平台)、所解决的营养缺乏问题以及经济评估的特征(例如模型类型、所包括的成本和结果)对研究进行分类。在确定的62项经济评估中,56项(90%)是成本效益分析。22项(36%)评估调查了强化措施,23项(37%)评估了预防性干预措施。预防性干预措施评估中有43%没有包括模型,而大多数强化策略使用相同的参考模型。我们在四个不同主题领域的评估中确定了成本类别以及健康和非健康结果纳入方面的不同趋势。为了说明这些趋势对决策的影响,我们比较了一组评估对抗锌缺乏替代策略的研究。我们表明,使用“现成”的模型和工具可能会潜在地掩盖所使用的结果、成本和价值判断。跨不同领域比较干预措施对于帮助决策者制定营养策略至关重要。卫生部门内外实施的干预措施的经济评估中的系统差异可能会削弱对替代营养策略进行优先排序的能力。