ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2016
Apunipima baby basket program: a retrospective cost study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Reported Strengths and Limitations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Research: A Narrative Review of Intervention Studies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Family-centred interventions by primary healthcare services for Indigenous early childhood wellbeing in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States: a systematic scoping review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Baby Basket initiative was developed by Apunipima Cape York Health Council (ACYHC) to address poor maternal and child health (MCH) in Cape York, the northernmost region of Queensland. While positive outcomes for Indigenous MCH programs are reported in the literature, few studies have a strong evidence base or employ a sound methodological approach to evaluation. The aim of the cost study is to identify the resources required to deliver the Baby Basket program in the remote communities of Cape York. It represents an initial step in the economic evaluation of the Apunipima Baby Basket program. The aim of this study was to report whether the current program represents an effective use of scarce resources.
methodThe cost study was conducted from the perspective of the health providers and reflects the direct resources required to deliver the Baby Basket program to 170 women across 11 communities represented by ACYHC. A flow diagram informed by interviews with ACYHC staff, administrative documents and survey feedback was used to map the program pathway and measure resource use. Monetary values, in 2013 Australian dollars, were applied to the resources used to deliver the Baby Basket program for one year.
resultsThe total cost of delivering the Baby Basket progam to 170 participants in Cape York was $148,642 or approximately, $874 per participant. The analysis allowed for the cost of providing the Baby Baskets to remote locations and the time for health workers to engage with women and thereby encourage a relationship with the health service. Routinely collected data showed improved engagement between expectant women and the health service during the life of the program.
conclusionThe Apunipima Baby Basket cost study identifies the resources required to deliver this program in remote communities of Cape York and provides a framework that will support prospective data collection of more specific outcome data, for future cost-effectiveness analyses and cost-benefit analyses. An investment of $874 per Baby Basket participant was associated with improved engagement with the health service, an important factor in maternal and child health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.