Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32133187›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2020

Are low and middle-income countries prioritising high-value healthcare interventions?

Ashley A Leech, David D Kim, Joshua T Cohen, Peter J Neumann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Health related quality of life in adults after late repair of tetralogy of fallot: experience from a low-middle income country.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Ethical Frameworks and Global Health: A Narrative Review of the "Leave No One Behind" Principle.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ashley A LeechDepartment of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6795-929X
David D KimCenter for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Joshua T CohenCenter for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Peter J NeumannCenter for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Tufts Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Since resources are finite, investing in services that produce the highest health gain 'return on investment' is critical. We assessed the extent to which low and middle-income countries (LMIC) have included cost-saving interventions in their national strategic health plans. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center Global Health Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, an open-source database of English-language cost-per-disability-adjusted life year (DALY) studies, to identify analyses published in the last 10 years (2008-2017) of cost-saving health interventions in LMICs. To assess whether countries prioritised cost-saving interventions within their latest national health strategic plans, we identified 10 countries, all in sub-Saharan Africa, with the highest measures on the global burden of disease scale and reviewed their national health priority plans. Results: We identified 392 studies (63%) targeting LMICs that reported 3315 cost-per-DALY ratios, of which 207 ratios (6%) represented interventions reported to be cost saving. Over half (53%) of these targeted sub-Saharan Africa. For the 10 countries we investigated in sub-Saharan Africa, 58% (79/137) of cost-saving interventions correspond with priorities identified in country plans. Alignment ranged from 95% (21/22 prioritised cost-saving ratios) in South Africa to 17% (2/12 prioritised cost-saving ratios) in Cameroon. Human papillomavirus vaccination was a noted priority in 70% (7/10) of national health prioritisation plans, while 40% (4/10) of countries explicitly included prenatal serological screening for syphilis. HIV prevention and treatment were stated priorities in most country health plans, whereas 40% (2/5) of countries principally outlined efforts for lymphatic filariasis. From our sample of 45 unique interventions, 36% of interventions (16/45) included costs associated directly with the implementation of the intervention. Conclusion: Our findings indicate substantial variation across country and disease area in incorporating economic evidence into national health priority plans in a sample of sub-Saharan African countries. To make health economic data more salient, the authors of cost-effectiveness analyses must do more to reflect implementation costs and other factors that could limit healthcare delivery.

Indexed as

Papillomavirus InfectionsPapillomavirus VaccinesAfrica South of the SaharaDeveloping CountriesFemaleHealth PrioritiesHumansPregnancyPapillomavirus Vaccineshealth economicshealth policy

Identifiers

PMID32133187
PMCPMC7042606
OpenAlexW3005447239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.