ArticlePloS one2018
A comparison of maternal and newborn health services costs in Sindh Pakistan.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Quality of inpatient care of small and sick newborns in Pakistan: perceptions of key stakeholders.BMC pediatrics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pakistani women suffer the highest rate of maternal mortality in South Asia. A lack of comprehensive knowledge about maternal and newborn health (MNH) services costs impedes policy decisions to maximize the benefit from existing, as well as emerging, MNH interventions in Pakistan. We compared MNH service costs at different levels of care. A cross-sectional survey was conducted during January to March 2016 as part of a large economic evaluation in Sindh, Pakistan. Health providers and facilities were selected from a sampling frame, inclusive of public and private sectors. This study utilized a broad perspective (i.e. costs to the health system and patients/families). The unit costs of MNH services were determined through a simultaneous allocation method in the public facilities; and patient billing department in the private facilities. Descriptive analysis was performed, and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was applied to compare overall mean costs both within and between health facilities. A total of 31 eligible health providers and facilities (n = 25 in private; n = 7 in public) were included in the final analysis. An ambulatory visit (AV) for routine antenatal care (ANC) costs $3.6 and $0.9 at secondary- and tertiary-level public facilities, respectively. In the private sector, the costs of an AV for ANC were slightly less ($2.8) at secondary-level and much higher ($6) at tertiary-level facilities compared to the public sector. Diagnostic test costs were much higher in private facilities. The average costs of inpatient admissions were $30.5 at general ward (GW), and $151 at the intensive care unit (ICU) in public facilities. In-patient admissions costs were lower such as $9.3 at GW and $36.5 at ICU in private facilities. Understanding cost is critical to guide decisions of resource allocation within the public sector; and risk mitigation for excessive OOP costs through third party payer for services in the private sector.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.