Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25925130›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2015

Reducing diarrhoea deaths in South Africa: costs and effects of scaling up essential interventions to prevent and treat diarrhoea in under-five children.

Lumbwe Chola, Julia Michalow, Aviva Tugendhaft, Karen Hofman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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

4 authors.

Lumbwe CholaPriority Cost-Effective Lessons for Systems Strengthening South Africa (PRICELESS SA) - Medical Research Council/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transition Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. lumbwe.chola@wits.ac.za.
Julia MichalowPriority Cost-Effective Lessons for Systems Strengthening South Africa (PRICELESS SA) - Medical Research Council/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transition Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. julia.michalow@wits.ac.za.
Aviva TugendhaftPriority Cost-Effective Lessons for Systems Strengthening South Africa (PRICELESS SA) - Medical Research Council/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transition Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. aviva.tugendhaft@wits.ac.za.
Karen HofmanPriority Cost-Effective Lessons for Systems Strengthening South Africa (PRICELESS SA) - Medical Research Council/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transition 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

backgroundDiarrhoea is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in South African children, accounting for approximately 20% of under-five deaths. Though progress has been made in scaling up multiple interventions to reduce diarrhoea in the last decade, challenges still remain. In this paper, we model the cost and impact of scaling up 13 interventions to prevent and treat childhood diarrhoea in South Africa.

methodsModelling was done using the Lives Saved Tool (LiST). Using 2014 as the baseline, intervention coverage was increased from 2015 until 2030. Three scale up scenarios were compared: by 2030, 1) coverage of all interventions increased by ten percentage points; 2) intervention coverage increased by 20 percentage points; 3) and intervention coverage increased to 99%.

resultsThe model estimates 13 million diarrhoea cases at baseline. Scaling up intervention coverage averted between 3 million and 5.3 million diarrhoea cases. In 2030, diarrhoeal deaths are expected to reduce from an estimated 5,500 in 2014 to 2,800 in scenario one, 1,400 in scenario two and 100 in scenario three. The additional cost of implementing all 13 interventions will range from US$510 million (US$9 per capita) to US$960 million (US$18 per capita), of which the health system costs range between US$40 million (less than US$1 per capita) and US$170 million (US$3 per capita).

conclusionScaling up 13 essential interventions could have a substantial impact on reducing diarrhoeal deaths in South African children, which would contribute toward reducing child mortality in the post-MDG era. Preventive measures are key and the government should focus on improving water, sanitation and hygiene. The investments required to achieve these results seem feasible considering current health expenditure.

Indexed as

ChildChild MortalityChild, PreschoolCosts and Cost AnalysisDiarrheaGlobal HealthHealth PromotionHumansHygieneMorbiditySanitationSouth AfricaWater Supply

Identifiers

PMID25925130
PMCPMC4411658

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.