Participatory learning and action cycles with women s groups to prevent neonatal death in low-resource settings: A multi-country comparison of cost-effectiveness and affordability.

Clicks: 300
ID: 262490
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #17 of 71 articles by views in Health policy and planning

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
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.
Reference Key
pulkkibrnnstrom2020participatoryhealth Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors 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;
Journal Health policy and planning
Year 2020
DOI
czaa081
URL
Keywords
randomized controlled trial costs cost-effectiveness analysis maternal and child health community mobilization

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.