Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38153802›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2023

Development and Pilot Implementation of Neotree, a Digital Quality Improvement Tool Designed to Improve Newborn Care and Survival in 3 Hospitals in Malawi and Zimbabwe: Cost Analysis Study.

Hassan Haghparast-Bidgoli, Tim Hull-Bailey, Deliwe Nkhoma, Tarisai Chiyaka, Emma Wilson, Felicity Fitzgerald, Gwendoline Chimhini, Nushrat Khan, Hannah Gannon, Rekha Batura and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

16 authors.

Hassan Haghparast-BidgoliInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6365-2944
Tim Hull-BaileyPopulation, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9919-3740
Deliwe NkhomaKamuzu Central Hospital, Lilongwe, Malawi.ORCID 0009-0008-5846-8673
Tarisai ChiyakaCentre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID 0000-0001-7784-9238
Emma WilsonPopulation, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7091-2417
Felicity FitzgeraldDepartment of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9594-3228
Gwendoline ChimhiniDepartment of Child Adolescent and Women's Health, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID 0000-0002-7280-3801
Nushrat KhanPopulation, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4521-0920
Hannah GannonPopulation, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5726-2752
Rekha BaturaInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0004-4637-2480
Mario Cortina-BorjaPopulation, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0627-2624
Leyla LarssonBiomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID 0000-0003-4869-4630
Msandeni ChiumeKamuzu Central Hospital, Lilongwe, Malawi.ORCID 0000-0002-3083-8563
Yali SassoonSnowplow Analytics, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0004-5908-9430
Simbarashe ChimhuyaDepartment of Child Adolescent and Women's Health, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID 0000-0003-2833-5155
Michelle HeysPopulation, Policy and Practice Research and Teaching Department, Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1458-505X

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V029126/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Two-thirds of the 2.4 million newborn deaths that occurred in 2020 within the first 28 days of life might have been avoided by implementing existing low-cost evidence-based interventions for all sick and small newborns. An open-source digital quality improvement tool (Neotree) combining data capture with education and clinical decision support is a promising solution for this implementation gap. Objective: We present results from a cost analysis of a pilot implementation of Neotree in 3 hospitals in Malawi and Zimbabwe. Methods: We combined activity-based costing and expenditure approaches to estimate the development and implementation cost of a Neotree pilot in 1 hospital in Malawi, Kamuzu Central Hospital (KCH), and 2 hospitals in Zimbabwe, Sally Mugabe Central Hospital (SMCH) and Chinhoyi Provincial Hospital (CPH). We estimated the costs from a provider perspective over 12 months. Data were collected through expenditure reports, monthly staff time-use surveys, and project staff interviews. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of uncertainties on the results or estimate potential costs at scale. A pilot time-motion survey was conducted at KCH and a comparable hospital where Neotree was not implemented. Results: Total cost of pilot implementation of Neotree at KCH, SMCH, and CPH was US $37,748, US $52,331, and US $41,764, respectively. Average monthly cost per admitted child was US $15, US $15, and US $58, respectively. Staff costs were the main cost component (average 73% of total costs, ranging from 63% to 79%). The results from the sensitivity analysis showed that uncertainty around the number of admissions had a significant impact on the costs in all hospitals. In Malawi, replacing monthly web hosting with a server also had a significant impact on the costs. Under routine (nonresearch) conditions and at scale, total costs are estimated to fall substantially, up to 76%, reducing cost per admitted child to as low as US $5 in KCH, US $4 in SMCH, and US $14 in CPH. Median time to admit a baby was 27 (IQR 20-40) minutes using Neotree (n=250) compared to 26 (IQR 21-30) minutes using paper-based systems (n=34), and the median time to discharge a baby was 9 (IQR 7-13) minutes for Neotree (n=246) compared to 3 (IQR 2-4) minutes for paper-based systems (n=50). Conclusions: Neotree is a time- and cost-efficient tool, comparable with the results from limited similar mHealth decision-support tools in low- and middle-income countries. Implementation costs of Neotree varied substantially between the hospitals, mainly due to hospital size. The implementation costs could be substantially reduced at scale due to economies of scale because of integration to the health systems and reductions in cost items such as staff and overhead. More studies assessing the impact and cost-effectiveness of large-scale mHealth decision-support tools are needed.

Indexed as

HospitalsQuality ImprovementCosts and Cost AnalysisHumansInfant, NewbornMalawiNeonatologyZimbabwebabiesbabychildchildrenclinical decision supportcostcostingcostsdecision supporteconomiceconomicsexpenditurematernalmHealthmobile healthneonatalnewbornnewbornspaediatricpaediatricspediatricpediatricsprematurepretermquality improvement tool

Identifiers

PMID38153802
PMCPMC10766148

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.