Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33407595›Full record

ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2021

Generalised cost-effectiveness analysis of 159 health interventions for the Ethiopian essential health service package.

Getachew Teshome Eregata, Alemayehu Hailu, Karin Stenberg, Kjell Arne Johansson, Ole Frithjof Norheim, Melanie Y Bertram

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Getachew Teshome EregataBergen Center for Ethics and Priority Setting, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. eregatagetachewteshome@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8283-5404
Alemayehu HailuBergen Center for Ethics and Priority Setting, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4872-8036
Karin StenbergDepartment of Health Systems Governance and Financing, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kjell Arne JohanssonBergen Center for Ethics and Priority Setting, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Ole Frithjof NorheimBergen Center for Ethics and Priority Setting, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Melanie Y BertramDepartment of Health Systems Governance and Financing, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Government of Ethiopia · ETWorld Health Organization · CHHarvard University · USUniversity of Bergen · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCost effectiveness was a criterion used to revise Ethiopia's essential health service package (EHSP) in 2019. However, there are few cost-effectiveness studies from Ethiopia or directly transferable evidence from other low-income countries to inform a comprehensive revision of the Ethiopian EHSP. Therefore, this paper reports average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) of 159 health interventions used in the revision of Ethiopia's EHSP.

methodsIn this study, we estimate ACERs for 77 interventions on reproductive maternal neonatal and child health (RMNCH), infectious diseases and water sanitation and hygiene as well as for 82 interventions on non-communicable diseases. We used the standardised World Health Organization (WHO) CHOosing Interventions that are cost effective methodology (CHOICE) for generalised cost-effectiveness analysis. The health benefits of interventions were determined using a population state-transition model, which simulates the Ethiopian population, accounting for births, deaths and disease epidemiology. Healthy life years (HLYs) gained was employed as a measure of health benefits. We estimated the economic costs of interventions from the health system perspective, including programme overhead and training costs. We used the Spectrum generalised cost-effectiveness analysis tool for data analysis. We did not explicitly apply cost-effectiveness thresholds, but we used US$100 and $1000 as references to summarise and present the ACER results.

resultsWe found ACERs ranging from less than US$1 per HLY gained (for family planning) to about US$48,000 per HLY gained (for treatment of stage 4 colorectal cancer). In general, 75% of the interventions evaluated had ACERs of less than US$1000 per HLY gained. The vast majority (95%) of RMNCH and infectious disease interventions had an ACER of less than US$1000 per HLY while almost half (44%) of non-communicable disease interventions had an ACER greater than US$1000 per HLY.

conclusionThe present study shows that several potential cost-effective interventions are available that could substantially reduce Ethiopia's disease burden if scaled up. The use of the World Health Organization's generalised cost-effectiveness analysis tool allowed us to rapidly calculate country-specific cost-effectiveness analysis values for 159 health interventions under consideration for Ethiopia's EHSP.

Indexed as

Cost effectiveness analysisEssential health servicesEthiopiaHealth care rationingPriority setting

Identifiers

PMID33407595
PMCPMC7787224
OpenAlexW3112987801

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.