ArticlePloS one2020
Standardized framework for evaluating costs of active case-finding programs: An analysis of two programs in Cambodia and Tajikistan.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tuberculosis screening costs and cost-effectiveness in high-risk groups: a systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Comparative cost analysis of community-based tuberculosis screening: Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) alone versus CAD with point-of-care C-reactive protein testing in South Africa and Lesotho.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Projecting the Impact and Costs of Near Point-of-Care Tuberculosis Screening Assays in Community-based Active Case Finding.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025Article
- Tuberculosis screening among cough suppressant buyers in pharmacies and drug outlets in Guinea: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2024Article
- Active Tuberculosis Screening via a Mobile Health App in Myanmar: Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Programmatic Cost-Effectiveness of a Second-Time Visit to Detect New Tuberculosis and Diabetes Mellitus in TB Contact Tracing in Myanmar.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Maintaining essential tuberculosis services during the COVID-19 pandemic, Philippines.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2022Article
- Article
- A cost analysis of implementing mobile health facilitated tuberculosis contact investigation in a low-income setting.PloS one · 2022Article
- Economic Evaluation of Community Tuberculosis Active Case-Finding Approaches in Cambodia: A Quasi-Experimental Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Determining the value of TB active case-finding: current evidence and methodological considerations.The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease · 2021Article
- Framework for planning and monitoring active TB case finding interventions to meet the global targets in the COVID-19 era and beyond: South-East Asia perspective.PLOS global public health · 2021Review
- Costs and cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive tuberculosis case finding strategy in Zambia.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOver the years, technological and process innovations enabled active case finding (ACF) programs to expand their capacities and scope to have evolved to close gaps in missing TB patients globally. However, with increased ACF program's operational complexity and a need for significant resource commitments, a comprehensive, transparent, and standardized approach in evaluating costs of ACF programs is needed to properly determine costs and value of ACF programs.
methodsBased on reviews of program activity and financial reports, multiple interviews with program managers of two TB REACH funded ACF programs deployed in Cambodia and Tajikistan, we first identified common program components, which formed the basis of the cost data collection, analysis, reporting framework. Within each program component and sub-activity group, cost data were collected and organized by relevant resource types (human resource, capital, recurrent, and overhead costs). Total shared, indirect and overhead costs were apportioned into each activity category based on direct human resource contribution (e.g. a number of staff and their relative level of effort dedicated to each program component). Capital assets were assessed specific to program components and were annualized based on their expected useful life and a 3% discount rate. All costs were assessed based on the service provider perspective and expressed in 2015 USD.
resultsOver the two program years (April 2013 to December 2015), the Cambodia and Tajikistan ACF programs cumulated a total cost of $336,951 and $771,429 to screen 68,846 and 1,980,516 target population, bacteriologically test 4,589 and 19,764 presumptive TB, diagnose 731 and 2,246 TB patients in the respective programs. Recurrent costs were the largest cost components (54% and 34%) of the total costs for the respective programs and Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) testing incurred largest program component/activity cost for both programs. Cost per screening was $0.63 and $0.10 and cost per Xpert test was $25 and $18; Cost per TB case detected (Xpert) was $373 and $343 in Cambodia and Tajikistan.
conclusionsResults from two contextually and programmatically different multi-component ACF programs demonstrate that our tool is fully capable of comprehensively and transparently evaluating and comparing costs of various ACF programs.
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.