ArticlePloS one2019
Improved calibration estimators for the total cost of health programs and application to immunization in Brazil.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- National estimates from the Youth '19 Rangatahi smart survey: A survey calibration approach.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- Correction: Improved calibration estimators for the total cost of health programs and application to immunization in Brazil.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multi-stage/level sampling designs have been widely used by survey statisticians as a means of obtaining reliable and efficient estimates at a reasonable implementation cost. This method has been particularly useful in National country-wide surveys to assess the costs of delivering public health programs, which are generally originated in different levels of service management and delivery. Unbiased and efficient estimates of costs are essential to adequately allocate resources and inform policy and planning. In recent years, the global health community has become increasingly interested in estimating the costs of immunization programs. In such programs, part of the cost correspond to vaccines and it is in most countries procured at the central level, while the rest of the costs are incurred in states, municipalities and health facilities, respectively. As such, total program cost is a result of adding these costs, and its variance should account for the relation between the totals at the different levels. An additional challenge is the missing information at the various levels. A variety of methods have been developed to compensate for this missing data. Weighting adjustments are often used to make the estimates consistent with readily-available information. For estimation of total program costs this implies adjusting the estimates at each level to comply with the characteristics of the country. In 2014, A National study to estimate the costs of the Brazilian National Immunization Program was initiated, requested by the Ministry of Health and with the support of international partners. We formulate a quick and useful way to compute the variance and deal with missing values at the various levels. Our approach involves calibrating the weights at each level using additional readily-available information such as the total number of doses administered. Taking the Brazilian immunization costing study as an example, this approach results in substantial gains in both efficiency and precision of the cost estimate.
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.