Ochalek Jessica, Gibbs Naomi K, Faria Rita, Darlong Joydeepa, Govindasamy Karthikeyan, Harden Melissa, Meka Anthony, Shrestha Dilip, Napit Indra Bahadur, Lilford Richard J, Sculpher Mark
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York YO10 5DD, United Kingdom.
Research, The Leprosy Mission Trust India, New Delhi 110001, India.
Health Policy Plan. 2023 Oct 11;38(9):1033-1049. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czad060.
This scoping review aims to identify and critically appraise published economic evaluations of self-help group (SHG) interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that seek to improve health and potentially also non-health outcomes. Through a systematic search of MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), EMBASE Ovid, PsychINFO, EconLit (Ovid) and Global Index Medicus, we identified studies published between 2014 and 2020 that were based in LMICs, included at least a health outcome, estimated intervention costs and reported the methods used. We critically analysed whether the methods employed can meaningfully inform decisions by ministries of health and other sectors, including donors, regarding whether to fund such interventions, and prioritized the aspects of evaluations that support decision-making and cross-sectoral decision-making especially. Nine studies met our inclusion criteria. Randomized controlled trials were the most commonly used vehicle to collect data and to establish a causal effect across studies. While all studies clearly stated one or more perspectives justifying the costs and effects that are reported, few papers clearly laid out the decision context or the decision maker(s) informed by the study. The latter is required to inform which costs, effects and opportunity costs are relevant to the decision and should be included in the analysis. Costs were typically reported from the provider or health-care sector perspective although other perspectives were also employed. Four papers reported outcomes in terms of a generic measure of health. Contrary to expectation, no studies reported outcomes beyond health. Our findings suggest limitations in the extent to which published studies are able to inform decision makers around the value of implementing SHG interventions in their particular context. Funders can make better informed decisions when evidence is presented using a cross-sectoral framework.
本综述旨在识别并批判性评价已发表的关于中低收入国家自助团体干预措施的经济评估,这些干预措施旨在改善健康状况,也可能改善非健康结果。通过系统检索MEDLINE ALL(Ovid)、EMBASE Ovid、PsychINFO、EconLit(Ovid)和Global Index Medicus,我们确定了2014年至2020年间发表的、以中低收入国家为背景、至少包括一项健康结果、估算了干预成本并报告了所用方法的研究。我们批判性地分析了所采用的方法是否能为卫生部和其他部门(包括捐助方)在是否资助此类干预措施方面的决策提供有意义的信息,并对评估中支持决策制定尤其是跨部门决策制定的方面进行了优先排序。九项研究符合我们的纳入标准。随机对照试验是各研究中最常用的数据收集和建立因果效应的手段。虽然所有研究都明确阐述了一个或多个证明所报告成本和效果合理性的观点,但很少有论文明确说明决策背景或该研究所告知的决策者。而后者对于明确哪些成本、效果和机会成本与决策相关并应纳入分析是必要的。成本通常是从提供者或医疗保健部门的角度报告的,不过也采用了其他角度。四篇论文以通用的健康指标报告了结果。与预期相反,没有研究报告健康以外的结果。我们的研究结果表明,已发表的研究在多大程度上能够为决策者提供关于在其特定背景下实施自助团体干预措施的价值的信息存在局限性。当使用跨部门框架呈现证据时,资助者可以做出更明智的决策。