Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34747673›Full record

ArticleSexual and reproductive health matters2021

The cost-effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health and rights interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

Andrea Hannah Kaiser, Björn Ekman, Madeleine Dimarco, Jesper Sundewall

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Sexual and reproductive health matters, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Progress towards sustainable development goals related to sexual health.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024
    Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Andrea Hannah KaiserAssociate, Sustainable Health Financing, Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) Inc., Bosta, MA, USA; Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Björn EkmanAssociate Professor, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-7630-7904
Madeleine DimarcoAssociate, Strategy and Investment, Health Workforce, Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) Inc., Boston, MA, USA.
Jesper SundewallAssociate Researcher, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; HEARD, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. Correspondence: jesper.sundewall@med.lu.se.ORCID 0000-0001-5357-5754
Lund University · SEClinton Health Access Initiative · USDeutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit · PH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) are an essential component of universal health coverage (UHC). In determining which SRHR interventions to include in their UHC benefits package, countries are advised to evaluate each service based on robust and reliable data, including cost-effectiveness data. We conducted a scoping review of full economic evaluations of the essential SRHR interventions included in the comprehensive package presented by the Guttmacher-

Indexed as

Reproductive HealthSexual HealthCost-Benefit AnalysisDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansPregnancyReproductive Rightscost-effectivenesseconomic evaluationhealth benefits packagelower- and middle-income countriesscoping reviewsexual and reproductive health and rightsuniversal health coverage

Identifiers

PMID34747673
PMCPMC8583757
OpenAlexW3212215791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.