1
|
Bresnahan BW, Vodicka E, Babigumira JB, Malik AM, Yego F, Lokangaka A, Chitah BM, Bauer Z, Chavez H, Moore JL, Garrison LP, Swanson JO, Swanson D, McClure EM, Goldenberg RL, Esamai F, Garces AL, Chomba E, Saleem S, Tshefu A, Bose CL, Bauserman M, Carlo W, Bucher S, Liechty EA, Nathan RO. Cost estimation alongside a multi-regional, multi-country randomized trial of antenatal ultrasound in five low-and-middle-income countries. BMC Public Health 2021; 21:952. [PMID: 34016085 PMCID: PMC8135981 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-10750-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2020] [Accepted: 04/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Improving maternal health has been a primary goal of international health agencies for many years, with the aim of reducing maternal and child deaths and improving access to antenatal care (ANC) services, particularly in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). Health interventions with these aims have received more attention from a clinical effectiveness perspective than for cost impact and economic efficiency. METHODS We collected data on resource use and costs as part of a large, multi-country study assessing the use of routine antenatal screening ultrasound (US) with the aim of considering the implications for economic efficiency. We assessed typical antenatal outpatient and hospital-based (facility) care for pregnant women, in general, with selective complication-related data collection in women participating in a large maternal health registry and clinical trial in five LMICs. We estimated average costs from a facility/health system perspective for outpatient and inpatient services. We converted all country-level currency cost estimates to 2015 United States dollars (USD). We compared average costs across countries for ANC visits, deliveries, higher-risk pregnancies, and complications, and conducted sensitivity analyses. RESULTS Our study included sites in five countries representing different regions. Overall, the relative cost of individual ANC and delivery-related healthcare use was consistent among countries, generally corresponding to country-specific income levels. ANC outpatient visit cost estimates per patient among countries ranged from 15 to 30 USD, based on average counts for visits with and without US. Estimates for antenatal screening US visits were more costly than non-US visits. Costs associated with higher-risk pregnancies were influenced by rates of hospital delivery by cesarean section (mean per person delivery cost estimate range: 25-65 USD). CONCLUSIONS Despite substantial differences among countries in infrastructures and health system capacity, there were similarities in resource allocation, delivery location, and country-level challenges. Overall, there was no clear suggestion that adding antenatal screening US would result in either major cost savings or major cost increases. However, antenatal screening US would have higher training and maintenance costs. Given the lack of clinical effectiveness evidence and greater resource constraints of LMICs, it is unlikely that introducing antenatal screening US would be economically efficient in these settings--on the demand side (i.e., patients) or supply side (i.e., healthcare providers). TRIAL REGISTRATION Trial number: NCT01990625 (First posted: November 21, 2013 on https://clinicaltrials.gov ).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B W Bresnahan
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
| | - E Vodicka
- Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - J B Babigumira
- Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - A M Malik
- Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
| | - F Yego
- Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya
| | - A Lokangaka
- Kinshasa School of Public Health, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo
| | | | - Z Bauer
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - H Chavez
- University of Francisco Marroquin, Guatemala City, Guatemala
| | | | - L P Garrison
- Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - J O Swanson
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - D Swanson
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - E Chomba
- University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia
| | - S Saleem
- Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan
| | - A Tshefu
- Kinshasa School of Public Health, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo
| | - C L Bose
- University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - M Bauserman
- University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - W Carlo
- University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - S Bucher
- Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | | | - R O Nathan
- Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|