ArticleBMJ open2022
Cost saving in primary versus tertiary level of reproductive health services in Sana'a, Yemen, 2013: a comparative cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate the cost saving for utilisation of vaginal delivery (VD), antenatal care (ANC) and an intrauterine device (IUD) services at primary health level facilities (PHLF) instead of tertiary health level facilities (THLF) in Sana'a.
designA comparative cross-sectional study.
settingEight PHLF in Sana'a governorate and three THLF in Sana'a city.
participantsA total of 180 women aged (15-45 years) were enrolled equally from PHLF and THLF. Sixty women attended for each reproductive health service (VD, ANC and IUD services). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The direct and indirect costs of services at PHLF and THLF, and the cost saving for utilisation of PHLF instead of THLF.
resultsThe median of direct medical cost (DMC) of VD, ANC and IUD services were US$43.86, US$14.77 and US$9.07 at THLF compared with US$19.54, US$0.93 and US$11.17 at PHLF, respectively. The DMC difference of VD, ANC and IUD services between THLF and PHLF was US$24.32, US$13.84 and US$-2.1, respectively. Regarding the direct non-medical costs (DNMC), the median of VD, ANC and IUD services were US$43.05, US$19.07 and US$17.27 at THLF compared with US$13.96, US$0.00 and US$0.00 at PHLF, respectively. The DNMC difference of VD, ANC and IUD service between THLF and PHLF was US$29.09, US$18.07 and US$16.27, respectively. Moreover, the median of indirect cost (INDC) for VD, ANC and IUD services were US$23.93, US$9.49 and US$10.44 at THLF compared with US$7.90, US$1.59 and US$1.06 at PHLF, respectively. The INDC difference of VD, ANC and IUD service between THLF and PHLF was US$16.03, US$7.90 and US$9.38, respectively.
conclusionThe study found the utilisation of VD, ANC and IUD services at PHLF instead of THLF is a considerable cost saving for families. Therefore, shifting the utilisation of services from THLF to PHLF reduces the financial burden affecting individuals, families and their productivity.
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.