Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32610819›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of health policy and management2021

Cost of Utilising Maternal Health Services in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

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

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of health policy and management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  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, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4449-0131
Francis Ifeanyi AyomohDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1281-0049
Ibukun-Oluwa Omolade AbejirindeCentre for Global Child Health, The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0139-0541
Oluwasola Banke-ThomasHealth Education West Midlands, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4006-9291
Ejemai Amaize EboreimeDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8277-2570
Charles Anawo AmehCentre for Maternal and Newborn Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2341-7605

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCost is a major barrier to maternal health service utilisation for many women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, comparable evidence of the available cost data in these countries is limited. We conducted a systematic review and comparative analysis of costs of utilising maternal health services in these settings.

methodsWe searched peer-reviewed and grey literature databases for articles reporting cost of utilising maternal health services in LMICs published post-2000. All retrieved records were screened and articles meeting the inclusion criteria selected. Quality assessment was performed using the relevant cost-specific criteria of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. To guarantee comparability, disaggregated costs data were inflated to 2019 US dollar equivalents. Total adjusted costs and cost drivers associated with utilising each service were systematically compared. Where heterogeneity in methods or non-disaggregated costs was observed, narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings.

resultsThirty-six studies met our inclusion criteria. Many of the studies costed multiple services. However, the most frequently costed services were utilisation of normal vaginal delivery (22 studies), caesarean delivery (13), and antenatal care (ANC) (10). The least costed services were post-natal care (PNC) and post-abortion care (PAC) (5 each). Studies used varied methods for data collection and analysis and their quality ranged from low to high with most assessed as average or high. Generally, across all included studies, cost of utilisation progressively increased from ANC and PNC to delivery and PAC, and from public to private providers. Medicines and diagnostics were main cost drivers for ANC and PNC while cost drivers were variable for delivery. Women experienced financial burden of utilising maternal health services and also had to pay some unofficial costs to access care, even where formal exemptions existed.

conclusionConsensus regarding approach for costing maternal health services will help to improve their relevance for supporting policy-making towards achieving universal health coverage. If indeed the post-2015 mission of the global community is to "leave no one behind," then we need to ensure that women and their families are not facing unnecessary and unaffordable costs that could potentially tip them into poverty.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesDelivery, ObstetricDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansIncomePregnancyPrenatal CareCostDeveloping CountriesEconomic EvaluationMaternal HealthUtilisation

Identifiers

PMID32610819
PMCPMC9278371

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.