Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39174995›Full record

ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2024

A scoping review of costing methodologies used to assess interventions for underserved pregnant people and new parents.

Elizabeth K Darling, Aisha Jansen, Bismah Jameel, Jean-Éric Tarride

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal for equity in health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Elizabeth K DarlingMcMaster Midwifery Research Centre, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., HSC 4H24, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. darlinek@mcmaster.ca.
Aisha JansenMcMaster Midwifery Research Centre, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., HSC 4H24, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Bismah JameelMcMaster Midwifery Research Centre, McMaster University, 1280 Main St. W., HSC 4H24, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Jean-Éric TarrideDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Communication Research Lab (CRL) 227, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8K 4K1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLack of evidence about the long-term economic benefits of interventions targeting underserved perinatal populations can hamper decision making regarding funding. To optimize the quality of future research, we examined what methods and costs have been used to assess the value of interventions targeting pregnant people and/or new parents who have poor access to healthcare.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review using methods described by Arksey and O'Malley. We conducted systematic searches in eight databases and web-searches for grey literature. Two researchers independently screened results to determine eligibility for inclusion. We included economic evaluations and cost analyses of interventions targeting pregnant people and/or new parents from underserved populations in twenty high income countries. We extracted and tabulated data from included publications regarding the study setting, population, intervention, study methods, types of costs included, and data sources for costs.

resultsFinal searches were completed in May 2024. We identified 103 eligible publications describing a range of interventions, most commonly home visiting programs (n = 19), smoking cessation interventions (n = 19), prenatal care (n = 11), perinatal mental health interventions (n = 11), and substance use treatment (n = 10), serving 36 distinct underserved populations. A quarter of the publications (n = 25) reported cost analyses only, while 77 were economic evaluations. Most publications (n = 82) considered health care costs, 45 considered other societal costs, and 14 considered only program costs. Only a third (n = 36) of the 103 included studies considered long-term costs that occurred more than one year after the birth (for interventions occurring only in pregnancy) or after the end of the intervention.

conclusionsA broad range of interventions targeting pregnant people and/or new parents from underserved populations have the potential to reduce health inequities in their offspring. Economic evaluations of such interventions are often at risk of underestimating the long-term benefits of these interventions because they do not consider downstream societal costs. Our consolidated list of downstream and long-term costs from existing research can inform future economic analyses of interventions targeting poorly served pregnant people and new parents. Comprehensively quantifying the downstream and long-term benefits of such interventions is needed to inform decision making that will improve health equity.

Indexed as

Vulnerable PopulationsCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPregnancyPrenatal CareCosts and cost analysisEconomic analysesEconomic evaluationHealthcare accessHealth equityPerinatal populationScoping reviewUnderserved populations

Identifiers

PMID39174995
PMCPMC11340114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.