Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29636964›Full record

ArticleSAGE open medicine2018

Quantifying and reducing statistical uncertainty in sample-based health program costing studies in low- and middle-income countries.

Claudia L Rivera-Rodriguez, Stephen Resch, Sebastien Haneuse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Estimators Used in Multisite Healthcare Costing Studies in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Simulation Study.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Claudia L Rivera-RodriguezDepartment of Statistics, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9614-7036
Stephen ReschDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Sebastien HaneuseDepartment of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4963-0655

Funding

Outcome Dependent Sampling Studies of Longitudinal Data: Design and AnalysisR01HL094786 · NHLBI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI Jonathan Scott Schildcrout · 2009 to 2026
$6.1M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL094786
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIn many low- and middle-income countries, the costs of delivering public health programs such as for HIV/AIDS, nutrition, and immunization are not routinely tracked. A number of recent studies have sought to estimate program costs on the basis of detailed information collected on a subsample of facilities. While unbiased estimates can be obtained via accurate measurement and appropriate analyses, they are subject to statistical uncertainty. Quantification of this uncertainty, for example, via standard errors and/or 95% confidence intervals, provides important contextual information for decision-makers and for the design of future costing studies. While other forms of uncertainty, such as that due to model misspecification, are considered and can be investigated through sensitivity analyses, statistical uncertainty is often not reported in studies estimating the total program costs. This may be due to a lack of awareness/understanding of (1) the technical details regarding uncertainty estimation and (2) the availability of software with which to calculate uncertainty for estimators resulting from complex surveys. We provide an overview of statistical uncertainty in the context of complex costing surveys, emphasizing the various potential specific sources that contribute to overall uncertainty.

methodsWe describe how analysts can compute measures of uncertainty, either via appropriately derived formulae or through resampling techniques such as the bootstrap. We also provide an overview of calibration as a means of using additional auxiliary information that is readily available for the entire program, such as the total number of doses administered, to decrease uncertainty and thereby improve decision-making and the planning of future studies.

resultsA recent study of the national program for routine immunization in Honduras shows that uncertainty can be reduced by using information available prior to the study. This method can not only be used when estimating the total cost of delivering established health programs but also to decrease uncertainty when the interest lies in assessing the incremental effect of an intervention.

conclusionMeasures of statistical uncertainty associated with survey-based estimates of program costs, such as standard errors and 95% confidence intervals, provide important contextual information for health policy decision-making and key inputs for the design of future costing studies. Such measures are often not reported, possibly because of technical challenges associated with their calculation and a lack of awareness of appropriate software. Modern statistical analysis methods for survey data, such as calibration, provide a means to exploit additional information that is readily available but was not used in the design of the study to significantly improve the estimation of total cost through the reduction of statistical uncertainty.

Indexed as

Costing studiesimmunizationstudy designtreatment programs

Identifiers

PMID29636964
PMCPMC5888835

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.