Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30054263›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2018

Forecasting the Value for Money of Mobile Maternal Health Information Messages on Improving Utilization of Maternal and Child Health Services in Gauteng, South Africa: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Amnesty LeFevre, Maria A Cabrera-Escobar, Diwakar Mohan, Jaran Eriksen, Debbie Rogers, Annie Neo Parsons, Iman Barre, Youngji Jo, Alain Labrique, Jesse Coleman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.7field-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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Amnesty LeFevre *Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8437-7240
Maria A Cabrera-EscobarWits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8090-4848
Diwakar MohanDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7532-366X
Jaran EriksenDepartment of Public Health Sciences and Department of Laboratory Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1146-5615
Debbie RogersPraekelt Foundation, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4420-6206
Annie Neo ParsonsJembi Health Systems, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3610-0914
Iman BarreDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6162-6563
Youngji JoDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1440-2786
Alain LabriqueDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2502-7819
Jesse Coleman *Wits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3601-7854
Johns Hopkins University · USUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZAJembi Health Systems · ZAKarolinska Institutet · SEPraekelt Foundation · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLimited evidence exists on the value for money of mHealth information programs in low resource settings.

objectiveThis study sought to model the incremental cost-effectiveness of gradually scaling up text messaging services to pregnant women throughout Gauteng province, South Africa from 2012 to 2017.

methodsData collection occurred as part of a retrospective study in 6 health centers in Gauteng province. Stage-based short message service (SMS) text messages on maternal health were sent to pregnant women twice per week during pregnancy and continued until the infant's first birthday. Program costs, incremental costs to users, and the health system costs for these women were measured along with changes in the utilization of antenatal care visits and childhood immunizations and compared with those from a control group of pregnant women who received no SMS text messages. Incremental changes in utilization were entered into the Lives Saved Tool and used to forecast lives saved and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) averted by scaling up program activities over 5 years to reach 60% of pregnant women across Gauteng province. Uncertainty was characterized using one-way and probabilistic uncertainty analyses.

resultsFive-year program costs were estimated to be US $1.2 million, 17% of which were incurred by costs on program development and 31% on SMS text message delivery costs. Costs to users were US $1.66 to attend clinic-based services, nearly 90% of which was attributed to wages lost. Costs to the health system included provider time costs to register users (US $0.08) and to provide antenatal care (US $4.36) and postnatal care (US $3.08) services. Incremental costs per DALY averted from a societal perspective ranged from US $1985 in the first year of implementation to US $200 in the 5th year. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $2000, the project had a 40% probability of being cost-effective in year 1 versus 100% in all years thereafter.

conclusionsStudy findings suggest that delivering SMS text messages on maternal health information to pregnant and postpartum women may be a cost-effective strategy for bolstering antenatal care and childhood immunizations, even at very small margins of coverage increases. Primary data obtained prospectively as part of more rigorous study designs are needed to validate modeled results.

Indexed as

cost effectivenesscost utility analysisdigital healthmHealth

Identifiers

PMID30054263
PMCPMC6086931
OpenAlexW2800516681

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.