106
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cost-effectiveness and affordability of community mobilisation through women’s groups and quality improvement in health facilities (MaiKhanda trial) in Malawi

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Understanding the cost-effectiveness and affordability of interventions to reduce maternal and newborn deaths is critical to persuading policymakers and donors to implement at scale. The effectiveness of community mobilisation through women’s groups and health facility quality improvement, both aiming to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality, was assessed by a cluster randomised controlled trial conducted in rural Malawi in 2008–2010. In this paper, we calculate intervention cost-effectiveness and model the affordability of the interventions at scale.

          Methods

          Bayesian methods are used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of the community and facility interventions on their own (CI, FI), and together (FICI), compared to current practice in rural Malawi. Effects are estimated with Monte Carlo simulation using the combined full probability distributions of intervention effects on stillbirths, neonatal deaths and maternal deaths. Cost data was collected prospectively from a provider perspective using an ingredients approach and disaggregated at the intervention (not cluster or individual) level. Expected Incremental Benefit, Cost-effectiveness Acceptability Curves and Expected Value of Information (EVI) were calculated using a threshold of $780 per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, the per capita gross domestic product of Malawi in 2013 international $.

          Results

          The incremental cost-effectiveness of CI, FI, and combined FICI was $79, $281, and $146 per DALY averted respectively, compared to current practice. FI is dominated by CI and FICI. Taking into account uncertainty, both CI and combined FICI are highly likely to be cost effective (probability 98% and 93%, EVI $210,423 and $598,177 respectively). Combined FICI is incrementally cost effective compared to either intervention individually (probability 60%, ICER $292, EIB $9,334,580 compared to CI). Future scenarios also found FICI to be the optimal decision. Scaling-up to the whole of Malawi, CI is of greatest value for money, potentially averting 13.0% of remaining annual DALYs from stillbirths, neonatal and maternal deaths for the equivalent of 6.8% of current annual expenditure on maternal and neonatal health in Malawi.

          Conclusions

          Community mobilisation through women’s groups is a highly cost-effective and affordable strategy to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality in Malawi. Combining community mobilisation with health facility quality improvement is more effective, more costly, but also highly cost-effective and potentially affordable in this context.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12962-014-0028-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references89

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          GBD 2010: design, definitions, and metrics.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Healthy life expectancy for 187 countries, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden Disease Study 2010

            The Lancet, 380(9859), 2144-2162
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

              Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                t.colbourn@ucl.ac.uk
                a.pulkki-brannstrom@ucl.ac.uk
                b.nambiar@ucl.ac.uk
                sung.kim.11@ucl.ac.uk
                austinbondo@gmail.com
                lumbani.banda@gmail.com
                charlesvmakwenda@gmail.com
                n.batura@ucl.ac.uk
                h.haghparast-bidgoli@ucl.ac.uk
                r.hunter@ucl.ac.uk
                anthony.costello@ucl.ac.uk
                gianluca@stats.ucl.ac.uk
                j.skordis-worrall@ucl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Cost Eff Resour Alloc
                Cost Eff Resour Alloc
                Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation : C/E
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-7547
                10 January 2015
                10 January 2015
                2015
                : 13
                : 1
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [ ]UCL Institute for Global Health, 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH UK
                [ ]Parent and Child Health Initiative (PACHI), Amina House, Western Wing – Second Floor, Capital City, P.O. Box 31686, Lilongwe 3, Malawi
                [ ]Research Department of Primary Care & Population Health, UCL Priment Clinical Trials Unit, Royal Free Campus, London, NW3 2PF UK
                [ ]Department of Statistical Science, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 6BT UK
                [ ]Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden
                Article
                28
                10.1186/s12962-014-0028-2
                4299571
                25649323
                bf9b3f10-34c5-43be-819b-09332e19804d
                © Colbourn et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 22 August 2014
                : 18 December 2014
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Public health
                cost-effectiveness,affordability,community mobilisation,women’s groups,quality improvement,maikhanda,scale-up,future scenarios,malawi

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content120

                Cited by16

                Most referenced authors1,119