Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33529225›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Economic evaluation of Health Extension Program packages in Ethiopia.

Lelisa Fekadu Assebe, Wondesen Nigatu Belete, Senait Alemayehu, Elias Asfaw, Kora Tushune Godana, Yibeltal Kiflie Alemayehu, Alula M Teklu, Amanuel Yigezu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Lelisa Fekadu AssebeFederal Ministry of Health, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0002-7857-3349
Wondesen Nigatu BeleteFederal Ministry of Health, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Senait AlemayehuMERQ Consultancy PLC, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Elias AsfawMERQ Consultancy PLC, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Kora Tushune GodanaDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia.
Yibeltal Kiflie AlemayehuMERQ Consultancy PLC, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Alula M TekluMERQ Consultancy PLC, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Amanuel YigezuMERQ Consultancy PLC, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEthiopia launched the Health Extension Program (HEP) in 2004, aimed at ensuring equitable community-level healthcare services through Health Extension Workers. Despite the program's being a flagship initiative, there is limited evidence on whether investment in the program represents good value for money. This study assessed the cost and cost-effectiveness of HEP interventions to inform policy decisions for resource allocation and priority setting in Ethiopia.

methodsTwenty-one health care interventions were selected under the hygiene and sanitation, family health services, and disease prevention and control sub-domains. The ingredient bottom-up and top-down costing method was employed. Cost and cost-effectiveness were assessed from the provider perspective. Health outcomes were measured using life years gained (LYG). Incremental cost per LYG in relation to the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of Ethiopia (US$852.80) was used to ascertain the cost-effectiveness. All costs were collected in Ethiopian birr and converted to United States dollars (US$) using the average exchange rate for 2018 (US$1 = 27.67 birr). Both costs and health outcomes were discounted by 3%.

resultThe average unit cost of providing selected hygiene and sanitation, family health, and disease prevention and control services with the HEP was US$0.70, US$4.90, and US$7.40, respectively. The major cost driver was drugs and supplies, accounting for 53% and 68%, respectively, of the total cost. The average annual cost of delivering all the selected interventions was US$9,897. All interventions fall within 1 times GDP per capita per LYG, indicating that they are very cost-effective (ranges: US$22-$295 per LYG). Overall, the HEP is cost-effective by investing US$77.40 for every LYG.

conclusionThe unit cost estimates of HEP interventions are crucial for priority-setting, resource mobilization, and program planning. This study found that the program is very cost-effective in delivering community health services.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisEthiopiaHealth ServicesHumans

Identifiers

PMID33529225
PMCPMC7853458

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.