ArticleBMJ open2025
Economic evaluation of Korea's COVID-19 response projects in Uzbekistan.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesThis study aims to assess the economic feasibility and broader policy implications of the Korea International Cooperation Agency's (KOICA) official development assistance (ODA) projects for the COVID-19 emergency response in Uzbekistan through a cost-benefit analysis. The primary research question is to evaluate whether the interventions provide sufficient economic returns relative to their costs while informing future pandemic preparedness of response strategies.
designA cost-benefit analysis using quantitative methods was performed to assess the financial impact of the COVID-19 ODA projects.
settingThe study was conducted in Uzbekistan, focusing on KOICA's COVID-19 emergency response projects from January 2020 to December 2021.
interventionsThe intervention involved the implementation of KOICA's COVID-19 emergency response activities, including early diagnosis support, establishment of rapid response bases, provision of medical equipment and emergency relief efforts in Uzbekistan. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure is the net present value (NPV) and benefit/cost ratio of the project. Secondary outcome measures are the project's effectiveness in terms of death prevention, reduction in medical costs and timely COVID-19 testing.
resultsThe analysis revealed a total programme cost of US$11 353 173, with a net benefit ranging from US$21 026 032 to US$34 573 403, and a benefit/cost ratio between 1.85 and 3.05. A detailed examination of costs and benefits highlighted the programme's positive NPV and benefit/cost ratio, indicating its economic feasibility. The study also underscored the programme's effectiveness in preventing deaths, reducing medical costs and providing timely COVID-19 testing.
conclusionsThe findings confirm that KOICA's COVID-19 emergency response projects in Uzbekistan were economically viable and effective. The study highlights the importance of integrating economic evaluations into ODA assessments, particularly for emergency response and infectious disease control. It recommends expanding the use of quantitative analysis to optimise resource allocation and improve decision-making in future global health crises.
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.