Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32130166›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

A Mobile Phone-Based Support Intervention to Increase Use of Postabortion Family Planning in Cambodia: Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation.

Jeremy Hill, Jourdan McGinn, John Cairns, Caroline Free, Chris Smith

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01823861 (Mobile Technology for Improved Family Planning), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

NCT01823861 nacompletednot on this map

Mobile Technology for Improved Family Planning

TypeinterventionalSponsorMarie Stopes InternationalRan2013 to 2014Enrolled500ConditionsContraception, Post-abortion Family Planning, mHealthArmsMobile phone-based intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Mobile phone-based interventions for improving contraception use.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Jeremy HillDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3749-6519
Jourdan McGinnDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2202-5500
John CairnsDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6442-0440
Caroline FreeDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1711-0006
Chris SmithGraduate School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki-shi, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-9238-3202
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L012251/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite progress over the last decade, there is a continuing unmet need for contraception in Cambodia. Interventions delivered by mobile phone could help increase uptake and continuation of contraception, particularly among hard-to-reach populations, by providing interactive personalized support inexpensively wherever the person is located and whenever needed.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mobile phone-based support added to standard postabortion family planning care in Cambodia, according to the results of the MOTIF (MObile Technology for Improved Family planning) trial.

methodsA model was created to estimate the costs and effects of the intervention versus standard care. We adopted a societal perspective when estimating costs, including direct and indirect costs for users. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated for the base case, as well as a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, which we compared against a range of likely cost-effectiveness thresholds.

resultsThe incremental cost of mobile phone-based support was estimated to be an additional US $8160.49 per 1000 clients, leading to an estimated 518 couple-years of protection (CYPs) gained per 1000 clients and 99 disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US $15.75 per additional CYP and US $82.57 per DALY averted. The model was most sensitive to personnel and mobile service costs. Assuming a range of cost-effectiveness thresholds from US $58 to US $176 for Cambodia, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective ranged from 11% to 95%.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that the cost-effectiveness of the intervention delivered by mobile phone assessed in the MOTIF trial lies within the estimated range of the cost-effectiveness threshold for Cambodia. When assessing value in interventions to improve the uptake and adherence of family planning services, the use of interactive mobile phone messaging and counselling for women who have had an abortion should be considered as an option by policy makers.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01823861; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01823861.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAftercareFamily Planning ServicesMobile ApplicationsCambodiaCell PhoneCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansPregnancyCambodiacontraceptioncost-effectivenessdigital healthmHealthpostabortion contraceptionpostabortion family planning

Identifiers

PMID32130166
PMCPMC7064963
OpenAlexW2994924669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.