Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25906769›Full record

ArticleGlobal health action2015

Cost and impact of scaling up interventions to save lives of mothers and children: taking South Africa closer to MDGs 4 and 5.

Lumbwe Chola, Yogan Pillay, Peter Barron, Aviva Tugendhaft, Kate Kerber, Karen Hofman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global health action, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lumbwe CholaPRICELESS - MRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Yogan PillaySouth Africa National Department of Health, Pretoria, South Africa.
Peter BarronSchool of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Aviva TugendhaftPRICELESS - MRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Kate KerberSave the Children, Cape Town, South Africa.
Karen HofmanPRICELESS - MRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; Karen.Hofman@wits.ac.za.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSouth Africa has made substantial progress on child and maternal mortality, yet many avoidable deaths of mothers and children still occur. This analysis identifies priority interventions to be scaled up nationally and projects the potential maternal and child lives saved.

designWe modelled the impact of maternal, newborn and child interventions using the Lives Saved Tools Projections to 2015 and used realistic coverage increases based on expert opinion considering recent policy change, financial and resource inputs, and observed coverage change. A scenario analysis was undertaken to test the impact of increasing intervention coverage to 95%.

resultsBy 2015, with realistic coverage, the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) can reduce to 153 deaths per 100,000 and child mortality to 34 deaths per 1,000 live births. Fifteen interventions, including labour and delivery management, early HIV treatment in pregnancy, prevention of mother-to-child transmission and handwashing with soap, will save an additional 9,000 newborns and children and 1,000 mothers annually. An additional US$370 million (US$7 per capita) will be required annually to scale up these interventions. When intervention coverage is increased to 95%, breastfeeding promotion becomes the top intervention, the MMR reduces to 116 and the child mortality ratio to 23.

conclusionsThe 15 interventions identified were adopted by the National Department of Health, and the Health Minister launched a campaign to encourage Provincial Health Departments to scale up coverage. It is hoped that by focusing on implementing these 15 interventions at high quality, South Africa will reach Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 4 soon after 2015 and MDG 5 several years later. Focus on HIV and TB during early antenatal care is essential. Strategic gains could be realised by targeting vulnerable populations and districts with the worst health outcomes. The analysis demonstrates the usefulness of priority setting tools and the potential for evidence-based decision making in the health sector.

Indexed as

MortalityBreast FeedingChildChild MortalityDelivery, ObstetricFemaleHand DisinfectionHealth EducationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityHIV InfectionsHumansInfantInfant MortalityLabor, ObstetricMaternal-Child Health Serviceschild healthcost and cost analysismaternal health

Identifiers

PMID25906769
PMCPMC4408314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.