Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35277429›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2022

Economic evaluations of health system strengthening activities in low-income and middle-income country settings: a methodological systematic review.

Nathaniel Hendrix, Xiaoxiao Kwete, Sarah Bolongaita, Itamar Megiddo, Solomon Tessema Memirie, Alemnesh H Mirkuzie, Justice Nonvignon, Stéphane Verguet

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [Economic evaluation in the health sector: The link between economic and health variables].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

8 authors.

Nathaniel HendrixDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8154-0276
Xiaoxiao KweteDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Sarah BolongaitaDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0886-0454
Itamar MegiddoDepartment of Management Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8391-6660
Solomon Tessema MemirieAddis Center for Ethics and Priority Setting, College of Health Sciences, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.ORCID 0000-0003-3806-2453
Alemnesh H MirkuzieNational Data Management Centre for Health, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Justice NonvignonSchool of Public Health, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana.
Stéphane VerguetDepartment of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA verguet@hsph.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4128-0849

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveHealth system strengthening (HSS) activities should accompany disease-targeting interventions in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Economic evaluations provide information on how these types of investment might best be balanced but can be challenging. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate how researchers address these economic evaluation challenges.

methodsWe identified studies about economic evaluation of HSS activities in LMICs using a two-stage approach. First, we conducted a broad search to identify areas where economic evaluations of HSS activities were being conducted. Next, we selected specific interventions for more targeted literature review. We extracted study characteristics using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Finally, we summarised authors' modelling decisions using a framework that examines how models are developed to emphasise generalisability, precision, or realism.

findingsOur searches produced 1978 studies, out of which we included 36. Most studies used data from prospective trials and calculated cost-effectiveness directly from these trial inputs, rather than using simulation methods. As a group, these studies primarily emphasised precision and realism over generalisability, meaning that their results were best suited to specific settings.

conclusionsThe number of included studies was small. Our findings suggest that most economic evaluations of HSS do not leverage methods like sensitivity analyses or inputs from literature review that would produce more generalisable (but potentially less precise) results. More research into how decision-makers would use economic evaluations to define the expansion path to strengthening health systems would allow for conceptualising impactful work on the economic value of HSS.

Indexed as

IncomePovertyCost-Benefit AnalysisGovernment ProgramsHumansProspective Studieshealth systems

Identifiers

PMID35277429
PMCPMC8919450

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.