Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26295955›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Cost-Effectiveness of Introducing the SILCS Diaphragm in South Africa.

Aurélia Lépine, Neeti Nundy, Maggie Kilbourne-Brook, Mariana Siapka, Fern Terris-Prestholt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Aurélia LépineGlobal Health & Development department, London school of hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Neeti NundyPATH, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Maggie Kilbourne-BrookPATH, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Mariana SiapkaGlobal Health & Development department, London school of hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Fern Terris-PrestholtGlobal Health & Development department, London school of hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBProgram for Appropriate Technology in Health · US

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L012057/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThough South Africa has high contraceptive use, unintended pregnancies are still widespread. The SILCS diaphragm could reduce the number of women with unmet need by introducing a discreet, woman-initiated, non-hormonal barrier method to the contraceptive method mix.

methodsA decision model was built to estimate the impact and cost-effectiveness of the introduction of the SILCS diaphragm in Gauteng among women with unmet need for contraception in terms of unintended and mistimed pregnancies averted, assuming that the available contraceptives on the market were not a satisfying option for those women. Full costs were estimated both from a provider's and user's perspective, which also accounts for women's travel and opportunity cost of time, assuming a 5% uptake among women with unmet contraceptive need. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is computed at five and 10 years after introduction to allow for a distribution of fixed costs over time. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to incorporate decision uncertainty.

resultsThe introduction of the SILCS diaphragm in Gauteng could prevent an estimated 8,365 unintended pregnancies and 2,117 abortions over five years, at an annual estimated cost of US$55 per woman. This comes to a cost per pregnancy averted of US$153 and US$171 from a user's and provider's perspectives, respectively, with slightly lower unit costs at 10 years. Major cost drivers will be the price of the SILCS diaphragm and the contraceptive gel, given their large contribution to total costs (around 60%).

conclusionsThe introduction of the SILCS diaphragm in the public sector is likely to provide protection for some women for whom current contraceptive technologies are not an option. However to realize its potential, targeting will be needed to reach women with unmet need and those with likely high adherence. Further analyses are needed among potential users to optimize the introduction strategy.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAdolescentAdultContraceptionContraception BehaviorContraceptive Devices, FemaleFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMiddle AgedPregnancyPregnancy, UnplannedSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID26295955
PMCPMC4546642
OpenAlexW1849082809

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.