Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28245839›Full record

SynthesisHuman resources for health2017

A systematic review of economic evaluations of CHW interventions aimed at improving child health outcomes.

L Nkonki, A Tugendhaft, K Hofman

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human resources for health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. What are economic costs and when should they be used in health economic studies?Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

L NkonkiCentre for Health Systems and Services Revision, Division of Community Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Francie van Zijl Rylaan/Drive, Tygerberg, 7505, South Africa. lnkonki@sun.ac.za.
A TugendhaftPRICELESS SA, 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.
K HofmanPRICELESS SA, 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.
Agincourt Health and Socio-Demographic Surveillance System · ZAUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence of the cost-effectiveness of community health worker interventions is pertinent for decision-makers and programme planners who are turning to community services in order to strengthen health systems in the context of the momentum generated by strategies to support universal health care, the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goal agenda.We conducted a systematic review of published economic evaluation studies of community health worker interventions aimed at improving child health outcomes. Four public health and economic evaluation databases were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria: National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Cochrane, Paediatric Economic Evaluation Database (PEED), and PubMed. The search strategy was tailored to each database.The 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria were conducted in either high income countries (HIC), low- income countries (LIC) and/or middle-income countries (MIC). The economic evaluations covered a wide range of interventions. Studies were grouped together by intended outcome or objective of each study. The data varied in quality. We found evidence of cost-effectiveness of community health worker (CHW) interventions in reducing malaria and asthma, decreasing mortality of neonates and children, improving maternal health, increasing exclusive breastfeeding and improving malnutrition, and positively impacting physical health and psychomotor development amongst children.Studies measured varied outcomes, due to the heterogeneous nature of studies included; a meta-analysis was not conducted. Outcomes included disease- or condition -specific outcomes, morbidity, mortality, and generic measures (e.g. disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)). Nonetheless, all 19 interventions were found to be either cost-effective or highly cost-effective at a threshold specific to their respective countries.There is a growing body of economic evaluation literature on cost-effectiveness of CHW interventions. However, this is largely for small scale and vertical programmes. There is a need for economic evaluations of larger and integrated CHW programmes in order to achieve the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goal agenda so that appropriate resources can be allocated to this subset of human resources for health. This is the first systematic review to assess the cost-effectiveness of community health workers in delivering child health interventions.

Indexed as

Child HealthChild Health ServicesCommunity Health WorkersCost-Benefit AnalysisDelivery of Health CareChildGlobal HealthHealth Services AccessibilityHumansWorkforceChild healthCommunity health workerCost-effectivenessEconomic evaluations

Identifiers

PMID28245839
PMCPMC5331680
OpenAlexW2593760454

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.