ArticleContraception2022
Economic evaluation of Zika Contraception Access Network in Puerto Rico during the 2016-17 Zika virus outbreak.
Article in Contraception, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDuring the 2016-2017 Zika virus (ZIKV) outbreak, the prevention of unintended pregnancies was identified as a primary strategy to prevent birth defects. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of the Zika Contraception Access Network (Z-CAN), an emergency response intervention that provided women in Puerto Rico with access to the full range of reversible contraception at no cost and compared results with a preimplementation hypothetical cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). STUDY
designWe evaluated costs and outcomes of Z-CAN from a health sector perspective compared to no intervention using a decision tree model. Number of people served, contraception methods mix, and costs under Z-CAN were from actual program data and other input parameters were from the literature. Health outcome measures included the number of Zika-associated microcephaly (ZAM) cases and unintended pregnancies. The economic benefits of the Z-CAN intervention were ZIKV-associated direct costs avoided, including lifetime medical and supportive costs associated with ZAM cases, costs of monitoring ZIKV-exposed pregnancies and infants born from Zika-virus infected mothers, and the costs of unintended pregnancies prevented during the outbreak as a result of increased contraception use through the Z-CAN intervention.
resultsThe Z-CAN intervention cost a total of $26.1 million, including costs for the full range of reversible contraceptive methods, contraception related services, and programmatic activities. The program is estimated to have prevented 85% of cases of estimated ZAM cases and unintended pregnancies in the absence of Z-CAN. The intervention cost was projected to have been more than offset by $79.9 million in ZIKV-associated costs avoided, 96% of which were lifetime ZAM-associated costs, as well as $137.0 million from avoided unintended pregnancies, with total net savings in one year of $216.9 million. The results were consistent with the previous CEA study.
conclusionZ-CAN was likely cost-saving in the context of a public health emergency response setting.
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.