ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2020
A cost-analysis of conducting population-based prevalence surveys for the validation of the elimination of trachoma as a public health problem in Amhara, Ethiopia.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of adding measurement of Chlamydia trachomatis infection and serology to trachoma prevalence surveys in Tanzania and Mozambique.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Photographic grading for trachoma diagnosis within trachoma impact surveys in Amhara region, Ethiopia.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2023Article
- The costs of monitoring trachoma elimination: Impact, surveillance, and trachomatous trichiasis (TT)-only surveys.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTrachoma prevalence surveys, including impact surveys (TIS) and surveillance surveys (TSS), provide information to program managers on the impact of the SAFE (surgery, antibiotics, facial cleanliness, and environmental improvement) strategy and current burden of disease, and they provide a crucial component of the evidence base necessary for the validation of the elimination of trachoma as a public health problem. The prevalence surveys included in this analysis are multi-level cluster random surveys that provide population-based estimates for program planning. This study conducted an analysis of the cost of 8 rounds of TIS/TSS executed in Amhara, Ethiopia, 2012-2016, comprising 232,357 people examined over 1,828 clusters in 187 districts. METHODOLOGY AND
findingsCost data were collected retrospectively from accounting and procurement records from the implementing partner, The Carter Center, and coded by survey activity (i.e. training and field work) and input category (i.e. personnel, transportation, supplies, venue rental, and other). Estimates of staff time were obtained from The Carter Center Ethiopia. Data were analyzed by activity and input category. The mean total cost per cluster surveyed was $752 (standard deviation $101). Primary cost drivers were personnel (39.6%) and transportation (49.2%), with costs increasing in the last 3 rounds of TIS/TSS.
conclusionDespite the considerable cost of conducting TIS and TSS, these surveys provide necessary information for program managers. Limited options are available to reduce the costs of TIS/TSS and gain economies of scale, as the surveys must be designed to achieve their designated sample size. However, surveys must also be designed in a way that is possible to be executed given the financial resources, personnel, and time required. Program managers can use these findings to improve estimates of the total cost of a survey and its components to ensure that sufficient resources are budgeted accordingly.
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.