Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32565428›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2020

e-income countries from a provider's perspective: a systematic review.

Aduragbemi Banke-Thomas, Ibukun-Oluwa Omolade Abejirinde, Francis Ifeanyi Ayomoh, Oluwasola Banke-Thomas, Ejemai Amaize Eboreime, Charles Anawo Ameh

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Aduragbemi Banke-ThomasDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom a.banke-thomas@lse.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4449-0131
Ibukun-Oluwa Omolade AbejirindeCentre for Global Child Health, Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0139-0541
Francis Ifeanyi AyomohDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.
Oluwasola Banke-ThomasHealth Education West Midlands, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Ejemai Amaize EboreimeDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8277-2570
Charles Anawo AmehCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2341-7605

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMaternal health services are effective in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with pregnancy and childbirth. We conducted a systematic review on costs of maternal health services in low-income and middle-income countries from the provider's perspective.

methodsWe searched multiple peer-reviewed databases (including African Journal Online, CINAHL Plus, EconLit, Popline, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science) and grey literature for relevant articles published from year 2000. Articles meeting our inclusion criteria were selected with quality assessment done using relevant cost-focused criteria of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. For comparability, disaggregated costs data were inflated to 2019 US$ equivalents. Costs and cost drivers were systematically compared. Where heterogeneity was observed, narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings.

resultsTwenty-two studies were included, with most studies costing vaginal and/or caesarean delivery (11 studies), antenatal care (ANC) (9) and postabortion care (PAC) (8). Postnatal care (PNC) has been least costed (2). Studies used different methods for data collection and analysis. Quality of peer-reviewed studies was assessed average to high while all grey literature studies were assessed as low quality. Following inflation, estimated provision cost per service varied (ANC (US$7.24-US$31.42); vaginal delivery (US$14.32-US$278.22); caesarean delivery (US$72.11-US$378.940; PAC (US$97.09-US$1299.21); family planning (FP) (US$0.82-US$5.27); PNC (US$5.04)). These ranges could be explained by intercountry variations, variations in provider type (public/private), facility type (primary/secondary) and care complexity (simple/complicated). Personnel cost was mostly reported as the major driver for provision of ANC, skilled birth attendance and FP. Economies of scale in service provision were reported.

conclusionThere is a cost savings case for task-shifting and encouraging women to use lower level facilities for uncomplicated services. Going forward, consensus regarding cost component definitions and methodologies for costing maternal health services will significantly help to improve the usefulness of cost analyses in supporting policymaking towards achieving Universal Health Coverage.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesMaternal Health ServicesCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansIncomePregnancyhealth economicsmaternal healthsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32565428
PMCPMC7309188

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.