Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31354971›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2019

Is quality affordable for community health systems? Costs of integrating quality improvement into close-to-community health programmes in five low-income and middle-income countries.

Meghan Bruce Kumar, Jason J Madan, Maryline Mireku Achieng, Ralalicia Limato, Sozinho Ndima, Aschenaki Z Kea, Kingsley Rex Chikaphupha, Edwine Barasa, Miriam Taegtmeyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. SEEP-CI: A Structured Economic Evaluation Process for Complex Health System Interventions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    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

9 authors.

Meghan Bruce KumarDepartment of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4713-8328
Jason J MadanWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Maryline Mireku AchiengResearch and Strategic Information, LVCT Health, Nairobi, Kenya.
Ralalicia LimatoEijkman-Oxford Clinical Research Unit, Eijkman Institute for Molecular Biology, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Sozinho NdimaCommunity Health Department, University of Eduardo Mondlane, Faculty of Medicine, Maputo, Mozambique.
Aschenaki Z KeaSchool of Public and Environmental Health, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia.
Kingsley Rex ChikaphuphaHealth Systems & HIV/AIDS Dept, Research for Equity and Community Health (REACH) Trust, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Edwine BarasaHealth Economics Research Unit, KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0001-5793-7177
Miriam TaegtmeyerDepartment of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCountries aspiring to universal health coverage view close-to-community (CTC) providers as a low-cost means of increasing coverage. However, due to lack of coordination and unreliable funding, the quality of large-scale CTC healthcare provision is highly variable and routine data about service quality are not trustworthy. Quality improvement (QI) approaches are a means of addressing these issues, yet neither the costs nor the budget impact of integrating QI approaches into CTC programme costs have been assessed.

methodsThis paper examines the costs and budget impact of integrating QI into existing CTC health programmes in five countries (Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique) between 2015 and 2017. The intervention involved: (1) QI team formation; (2) Phased training interspersed with supportive supervision; which resulted in (3) QI teams independently collecting and analysing data to conduct QI interventions. Project costs were collected using an ingredients approach from a health systems perspective. Based on project costs, costs of local adoption of the intervention were modelled under three implementation scenarios.

resultsAnnualised economic unit costs ranged from $62 in Mozambique to $254 in Ethiopia per CTC provider supervised, driven by the context, type of community health model and the intensity of the intervention. The budget impact of Ministry-led QI for community health is estimated at 0.53% or less of the general government expenditure on health in all countries (and below 0.03% in three of the five countries).

conclusionCTC provision is a key component of healthcare delivery in many settings, so QI has huge potential impact. The impact is difficult to establish conclusively, but as a first step we have provided evidence to assess affordability of QI for community health. Further research is needed to assess whether QI can achieve the level of benefits that would justify the required investment.

Indexed as

health economicshealth policyhealth services researchhealth systemspublic health

Identifiers

PMID31354971
PMCPMC6626522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.