Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29458382›Full record

ArticleHuman resources for health2018

Cost-effectiveness of the treatment of uncomplicated severe acute malnutrition by community health workers compared to treatment provided at an outpatient facility in rural Mali.

Eleanor Rogers, Karen Martínez, Jose Luis Alvarez Morán, Franck G B Alé, Pilar Charle, Saul Guerrero, Chloe Puett

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Human resources for health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Eleanor RogersAction Against Hunger UK, First Floor - Rear Premises - 161-163 Greenwich High Road - London, London, SE10 8JA, UK. rogerseleanor100@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8071-1619
Karen MartínezAction Against Hunger USA, One Whitehall St, New York, NY, 10004, USA.
Jose Luis Alvarez MoránAction Against Hunger UK, First Floor - Rear Premises - 161-163 Greenwich High Road - London, London, SE10 8JA, UK.
Franck G B AléArea of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Rey Juan Carlos University, Avda. Atenas s/n, 28922, Alcorcón (Madrid), Spain.
Pilar CharleFundación Acción Contra el Hambre | ACF-Spain, C/ del Duque de Sevilla, 328002, Madrid, Spain.
Saul GuerreroAction Against Hunger USA, One Whitehall St, New York, NY, 10004, USA.
Chloe PuettAction Against Hunger USA, One Whitehall St, New York, NY, 10004, USA.
ActionAid · USUniversidad Rey Juan Carlos · ESUniversity of Greenwich · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Malian Nutrition Division of the Ministry of Health and Action Against Hunger tested the feasibility of integrating treatment of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) into the existing Integrated Community Case Management package delivered by community health workers (CHWs). This study assessed costs and cost-effectiveness of CHW-delivered care compared to outpatient facility-based care.

methodsActivity-based costing methods were used, and a societal perspective employed to include all relevant costs incurred by institutions, beneficiaries and communities. The intervention and control arm enrolled different numbers of children so a modelled scenario sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of the two arms, assuming equal numbers of children enrolled.

resultsIn the base case, with unequal numbers of children in each arm, for CHW-delivered care, the cost per child treated was 244 USD and cost per child recovered was 259 USD. Outpatient facility-based care was less cost-effective at 442 USD per child and 501 USD per child recovered. The conclusions of the analysis changed in the modelled scenario sensitivity analysis, with outpatient facility-based care being marginally more cost-effective (cost per child treated is 188 USD, cost per child recovered is 214 USD), compared to CHW-delivered care. This suggests that achieving good coverage is a key factor influencing cost-effectiveness of CHWs delivering treatment for SAM in this setting. Per week of treatment, households receiving CHW-delivered care spent half of the time receiving treatment and three times less money compared with those receiving treatment from the outpatient facility.

conclusionsThis study supports existing evidence that the delivery of treatment by CHWs is a cost-effective intervention, provided that good coverage is achieved. A major benefit of this strategy was the lower cost incurred by the beneficiary household when treatment is available in the community. Further research is needed on the implementation costs that would be incurred by the government to increase the operability of these results.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesCommunity Health ServicesCommunity Health WorkersCost-Benefit AnalysisRural Health ServicesAmbulatory CareChildDelivery of Health CareHealth Care CostsHealth ExpendituresHumansMaliRural PopulationSevere Acute MalnutritionCommunity-based Management of Acute Malnutrition (CMAM)Community health workers (CHWs)Cost-effectivenessMaliSevere acute malnutrition (SAM)

Identifiers

PMID29458382
PMCPMC5819265
OpenAlexW2788962426

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.