ArticleEpilepsia2021
Community health workers to improve adherence to anti-seizure medication in rural South Africa: Is it cost-effective?
Article in Epilepsia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decision-analytic models in the economic evaluation of community health worker programmes globally: a systematic review.BMJ global health · 2026Pooled it
- Charting neuroethics discourse in Africa: A scoping review of ethical issues of neuroscience research in Africa.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2025Article
- Facilitators and barriers of antiseizure medication adherence from Australian healthcare providers' perspectives: A qualitative study.Epilepsia open · 2025Article
- Article
- Status of epilepsy in the tropics: An overlooked perspective.Epilepsia open · 2023Review
- Community health workers to improve adherence to anti-seizure medication in rural South Africa: Is it cost-effective?Epilepsia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveEpilepsy is a common, chronic neurological disorder that disproportionately affects individuals living in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the treatment gap remains high and adherence to medication remains low. Community health workers (CHWs) have been shown to be effective at improving adherence to chronic medications, yet no study assessing the costs of CHWs in epilepsy management has been reported.
methodsUsing a Markov model with age- and sex-varying transition probabilities, we determined whether deploying CHWs to improve epilepsy treatment adherence in rural South Africa would be cost-effective. Data were derived using published studies from rural South Africa. Official statistics and international disability weights provided cost and health state values, respectively, and health gains were measured using quality adjusted life years (QALYs).
resultsThe intervention was estimated at International Dollars ($) 123 250 per annum per sub-district community and cost $1494 and $1857 per QALY gained for males and females, respectively. Assuming a costlier intervention and lower effectiveness, cost per QALY was still less than South Africa's Gross Domestic Product per capita of $13 215, the cost-effectiveness threshold applied. SIGNIFICANCE: CHWs would be cost-effective and the intervention dominated even when costs and effects of the intervention were unfavorably varied. Health system re-engineering currently underway in South Africa identifies CHWs as vital links in primary health care, thereby ensuring sustainability of the intervention. Further research on understanding local health state utility values and cost-effectiveness thresholds could further inform the current model, and undertaking the proposed intervention would provide better estimates of its efficacy on reducing the epilepsy treatment gap in rural South Africa.
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.