Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39184918›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies advances2024

Health economic evaluations of programs reducing preterm birth: A scoping review.

Anvitaa Chadha, Suzanne Moore, Sue Kildea, Yu Gao

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Anvitaa ChadhaMolly Wardaguga Institute for First Nations Birth Rights, Faculty of Health, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, Australia.
Suzanne MooreMolly Wardaguga Institute for First Nations Birth Rights, Faculty of Health, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, Australia.
Sue KildeaMolly Wardaguga Institute for First Nations Birth Rights, Faculty of Health, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, Australia.
Yu GaoMolly Wardaguga Institute for First Nations Birth Rights, Faculty of Health, Charles Darwin University, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Preterm birth has lifelong implications, placing a burden on individuals, families, communities and the health system. While several interventions to reduce preterm birth have been economically evaluated, no scoping review has been undertaken. Objective: To conduct a scoping review of economic evaluations of interventions that have reduced preterm birth, identify gaps in the literature and inform future health care providers and researchers on the economic value of preterm birth reduction interventions. Methods: Databases such as PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EBSCO, Medline (OVID), EMBASE, NHS Health Technology Assessment, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and grey literature were comprehensively searched for economic evaluations of interventions that reduced preterm birth conducted since 2000. Items included: preterm birth reduction, intervention, method of economic evaluation, time-horizon of analysis, study population, perspective of evaluation, effectiveness, and costs. Review processes were undertaken by two reviewers, and disagreements were resolved by the larger team. Results: Fifteen publications met the inclusion criteria, including pharmacological interventions (5), telemedicine (1), diagnostic procedures (2), public and community health (2), prenatal care and nutrition (2), father's involvement (1), doula care (1) and a comprehensive maternity service redesign (1). Variations were observed in study design, time-horizon, study population and method of evaluation. Most studies (n = 13) adopted either a healthcare payer, provider, or system perspective. Shorter timehorizons for analysis were adopted in all studies, except one that conducted a lifetime economic evaluation. All included interventions, except one, were found to be costeffective, cost-beneficial or led to cost-savings. Conclusion: Despite preterm birth placing a high economic burden on health systems and society, we found a dearth of long-term economic evaluations of prevention and reduction initiatives. Future research on preterm birth reduction initiatives should include economic evaluations.

Indexed as

Cost-effectivenessCostingEconomic evaluationPreterm birthScoping review

Identifiers

PMID39184918
PMCPMC11342894

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.