Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29212509›Full record

Trial reportGlobalization and health2017

Incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of low-dose, high-frequency training in basic emergency obstetric and newborn care as compared to status quo: part of a cluster-randomized training intervention evaluation in Ghana.

Michelle Willcox, Heather Harrison, Amos Asiedu, Allyson Nelson, Patricia Gomez, Amnesty LeFevre

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Globalization and health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Framework for developing cost-effectiveness analysis threshold: the case of Egypt.The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

6 authors.

Michelle WillcoxJhpiego, an affiliate of Johns Hopkins University, 1615 Thames St, Baltimore, MD, #200, USA. michelle.willcox@jhpiego.org.
Heather HarrisonJhpiego, an affiliate of Johns Hopkins University, 1615 Thames St, Baltimore, MD, #200, USA.
Amos AsieduJhpiego, 14 Ollenu Rd, Accra, Ghana.
Allyson NelsonJhpiego, Mamba Point, Monrovia, Liberia.
Patricia GomezJhpiego, an affiliate of Johns Hopkins University, 1615 Thames St, Baltimore, MD, #200, USA.
Amnesty LeFevreDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University Global mHealth Initiative, 615 N. Wolfe St, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation OPP1087303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow-dose, high-frequency (LDHF) training is a new approach best practices to improve clinical knowledge, build and retain competency, and transfer skills into practice after training. LDHF training in Ghana is an opportunity to build health workforce capacity in critical areas of maternal and newborn health and translate improved capacity into better health outcomes.

methodsThis study examined the costs of an LDHF training approach for basic emergency obstetric and newborn care and calculates the incremental cost-effectiveness of the LDHF training program for health outcomes of newborn survival, compared to the status quo alternative of no training. The costs of LDHF were compared to costs of traditional workshop-based training per provider trained. Retrospective program cost analysis with activity-based costing was used to measure all resources of the LDHF training program over a 3-year analytic time horizon. Economic costs were estimated from financial records, informant interviews, and regional market prices. Health effects from the program's impact evaluation were used to model lives saved and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. Uncertainty analysis included one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to explore incremental cost-effectiveness results when fluctuating key parameters.

resultsFor the 40 health facilities included in the evaluation, the total LDHF training cost was $823,134. During the follow-up period after the first LDHF training-1 year at each participating facility-approximately 544 lives were saved. With deterministic calculation, these findings translate to $1497.77 per life saved or $53.07 per DALY averted. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, with mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $54.79 per DALY averted ($24.42-$107.01), suggests the LDHF training program as compared to no training has 100% probability of being cost-effective above a willingness to pay threshold of $1480, Ghana's gross national income per capita in 2015.

conclusionThis study provides insight into the investment of LDHF training and value for money of this approach to training in-service providers on basic emergency obstetric and newborn care. The LDHF training approach should be considered for expansion in Ghana and integrated into existing in-service training programs and health system organizational structures for lower cost and more efficiency at scale.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisEmergency Medical ServicesCluster AnalysisFemaleGhanaHumansInfant, NewbornObstetricsPregnancyProgram EvaluationCost analysisCost-effectiveness analysisEconomic evaluationFacility-based trainingFrontline health workersGhanaIn-service trainingLow-dose, high-frequency trainingMaternal and newborn healthMNH

Identifiers

PMID29212509
PMCPMC5719574

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.