Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29202731›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017

Economic evaluation of emergency obstetric care training: a systematic review.

Aduragbemi Banke-Thomas, Megan Wilson-Jones, Barbara Madaj, Nynke van den Broek

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Effects of the Helping Mothers Survive Bleeding after Birth training on near miss morbidity and mortality in Uganda: A cluster-randomized trial.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2021
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

4 authors.

Aduragbemi Banke-ThomasCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, L3 5QA, Liverpool, UK.
Megan Wilson-JonesCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, L3 5QA, Liverpool, UK.
Barbara MadajCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, L3 5QA, Liverpool, UK.
Nynke van den BroekCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, L3 5QA, Liverpool, UK. Nynke.vandenBroek@lstmed.ac.uk.

Funding

Department for International Development 202945-101
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraining healthcare providers in Emergency Obstetric Care (EmOC) has been shown to be effective in improving their capacity to provide this critical care package for mothers and babies. However, little is known about the costs and cost-effectiveness of such training. Understanding costs and cost-effectiveness is essential in guaranteeing value-for-money in healthcare spending. This study systematically reviewed the available literature on cost and cost-effectiveness of EmOC trainings.

methodsPeer-reviewed and grey literature was searched for relevant papers published after 1990. Studies were included if they described an economic evaluation of EmOC training and the training cost data were available. Two reviewers independently searched, screened, and selected studies that met the inclusion criteria, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Quality of studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement. For comparability, all costs in local currency were converted to International dollar (I$) equivalents using purchasing power parity conversion factors. The cost per training per participant was calculated. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise the available evidence on cost effectiveness.

resultsFourteen studies (five full and nine partial economic evaluations) met the inclusion criteria. All five and two of the nine partial economic evaluations were of high quality. The majority of studies (13/14) were from low- and middle-income countries. Training equipment, per diems and resource person allowance were the most expensive components. Cost of training per person per day ranged from I$33 to I$90 when accommodation was required and from I$5 to I$21 when training was facility-based. Cost-effectiveness of training was assessed in 5 studies with differing measures of effectiveness (knowledge, skills, procedure cost and lives saved) making comparison difficult.

conclusionsEconomic evaluations of EmOC training are limited. There is a need to scale-up and standardise processes that capture both cost and effectiveness of training and to agree on suitable economic evaluation models that allow for comparability across settings.

trial registrationPROSPERO_CRD42016041911 .

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisEducation, MedicalEmergency Medical ServicesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMaternal-Child Health ServicesObstetricsPregnancyCost analysisCost-benefit analysisCost-effectiveness analysisCost-utility analysisEconomic evaluationEmergency obstetric careTrainingValue-for-money

Identifiers

PMID29202731
PMCPMC5716021

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.